[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 161 (Wednesday, December 8, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H8222-H8243]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    DEVELOPMENT, RELIEF, AND EDUCATION FOR ALIEN MINORS ACT OF 2010

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1756, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 5281) to amend title 28, United States Code, to 
clarify and improve certain provisions relating to the removal of 
litigation against Federal officers or agencies to Federal courts, and 
for other purposes, with the Senate amendments thereto, and I have a 
motion at the desk.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Driehaus). The Clerk will designate the 
Senate amendments.
  The text of the Senate amendments is as follows:

       Senate amendments:
     (1)On page 2, strike lines 8 through 18 and insert the 
     following:
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1)--
       (A) by inserting ``that is'' after ``or criminal 
     prosecution'';
       (B) by inserting ``and that is'' after ``in a State 
     court''; and

[[Page H8223]]

       (C) by inserting ``or directed to'' after ``against''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) As used in subsection (a), the terms `civil action' 
     and `criminal prosecution' include any proceeding (whether or 
     not ancillary to another proceeding) to the extent that in 
     such proceeding a judicial order, including a subpoena for 
     testimony or documents, is sought or issued. If removal is 
     sought for a proceeding described in the previous sentence, 
     and there is no other basis for removal, only that proceeding 
     may be removed to the district court.''.

     (2)On page 3, strike lines 4 through 19 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(g) Where the civil action or criminal prosecution that 
     is removable under section 1442(a) is a proceeding in which a 
     judicial order for testimony or documents is sought or issued 
     or sought to be enforced, the 30-day requirement of 
     subsections (b) and (c) is satisfied if the person or entity 
     desiring to remove the proceeding files the notice of removal 
     not later than 30 days after receiving, through service, 
     notice of any such proceeding.''.

     (3)On page 3, strike line 23 and all that follows through 
     page 4, line 6, and insert the following:

     SEC. 3. PAYGO COMPLIANCE.

       The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
     complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010, shall 
     be determined by reference to the latest statement titled 
     ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, 
     submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the 
     Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, provided that such 
     statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.


                            Motion to Concur

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the motion.
  The text of the motion is as follows:
  Mr. CONYERS moves that the House concur in Senate amendments numbered 
1 and 2, and concur in Senate amendment numbered 3 with an amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment:
       At the end of the matter proposed to be inserted by the 
     Senate amendment numbered 3, add the following:

     SEC. 4. SHORT TITLE.

       Notwithstanding section 1, sections 5 through 16 of this 
     Act may be cited as the ``Development, Relief, and Education 
     for Alien Minors Act of 2010'' or the ``DREAM Act of 2010''.

     SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

       In this section and sections 6 through 16 of this Act:
       (1) In general.--Except as otherwise specifically provided, 
     a term used in this section and section 6 through 16 of this 
     Act that is used in the immigration laws shall have the 
     meaning given such term in the immigration laws.
       (2) Armed forces.--The term ``Armed Forces'' has the 
     meaning given the term ``armed forces'' in section 101(a) of 
     title 10, United States Code.
       (3) Conditional nonimmigrant.--
       (A) Definition.--The term ``conditional nonimmigrant'' 
     means an alien who is granted conditional nonimmigrant status 
     under this Act.
       (B) Description.--A conditional nonimmigrant--
       (i) shall be considered to be an alien within a 
     nonimmigrant class for purposes of the immigration laws;
       (ii) may have the intention permanently to reside in the 
     United States; and
       (iii) is not required to have a foreign residence which the 
     alien has no intention of abandoning.
       (4) Immigration laws.--The term ``immigration laws'' has 
     the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(17) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17)).
       (5) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     ``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1002), except that the term does not include an 
     institution of higher education outside the United States.

     SEC. 6. CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL OF CERTAIN LONG-TERM 
                   RESIDENTS WHO ENTERED THE UNITED STATES AS 
                   CHILDREN.

       (a) Special Rule for Certain Long-term Residents Who 
     Entered the United States as Children.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     and except as otherwise provided in this section and sections 
     7 through 16 of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     may cancel removal of an alien who is inadmissible or 
     deportable from the United States, and grant the alien 
     conditional nonimmigrant status, if the alien demonstrates by 
     a preponderance of the evidence that--
       (A) the alien has been physically present in the United 
     States for a continuous period of not less than 5 years 
     immediately preceding the date of the enactment of this Act 
     and was younger than 16 years of age on the date the alien 
     initially entered the United States;
       (B) the alien has been a person of good moral character 
     since the date the alien initially entered the United States;
       (C) subject to paragraph (2), the alien--
       (i) is not inadmissible under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), 
     (6)(E), (6)(G), (8), (10)(A), (10)(C), or (10)(D) of section 
     212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1182(a));
       (ii) is not deportable under paragraph (1)(E), (1)(G), (2), 
     (4), (5), or (6) of section 237(a) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a));
       (iii) has not ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise 
     participated in the persecution of any person on account of 
     race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular 
     social group, or political opinion; and
       (iv) has not been convicted of--

       (I) any offense under Federal or State law punishable by a 
     maximum term of imprisonment of more than 1 year; or
       (II) 3 or more offenses under Federal or State law, for 
     which the alien was convicted on different dates for each of 
     the 3 offenses and sentenced to imprisonment for an aggregate 
     of 90 days or more;

       (D) the alien--
       (i) has been admitted to an institution of higher education 
     in the United States; or
       (ii) has earned a high school diploma or obtained a general 
     education development certificate in the United States;
       (E) the alien has never been under a final administrative 
     or judicial order of exclusion, deportation, or removal, 
     unless the alien--
       (i) has remained in the United States under color of law 
     after such order was issued; or
       (ii) received the order before attaining the age of 16 
     years; and
       (F) the alien was younger than 30 years of age on the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Waiver.--With respect to any benefit under this section 
     and sections 7 through 16 of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security may waive the ground of inadmissibility 
     under paragraph (1), (4), or (6) of section 212(a) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)) and the 
     ground of deportability under paragraph (1) of section 237(a) 
     of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)) for humanitarian purposes or 
     family unity or when it is otherwise in the public interest.
       (3) Procedures.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     provide a procedure by regulation allowing eligible 
     individuals to apply affirmatively for the relief available 
     under this subsection without being placed in removal 
     proceedings.
       (4) Surcharge.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     charge and collect a surcharge of $525 per application on all 
     applications for relief under this subsection. Such surcharge 
     shall be in addition to the otherwise applicable application 
     fee imposed for the purpose of recovering the full costs of 
     providing adjudication and processing services. 
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 
     286 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356), 
     any surcharge collected under this paragraph shall be 
     deposited as offsetting receipts in the General Fund of the 
     Treasury and shall not be available for obligation or 
     expenditure.
       (5) Deadline for submission of application.--An alien shall 
     submit an application for cancellation of removal and 
     conditional nonimmigrant status under this subsection no 
     later than the date that is 1 year after the later of--
       (A) the date the alien earned a high school diploma or 
     obtained a general education development certificate in the 
     United States; or
       (B) the effective date of the interim regulations under 
     subsection (d).
       (6) Submission of biometric and biographic data.--The 
     Secretary of Homeland Security may not cancel the removal of 
     an alien or grant conditional nonimmigrant status to the 
     alien under this subsection unless the alien submits 
     biometric and biographic data, in accordance with procedures 
     established by the Secretary. The Secretary shall provide an 
     alternative procedure for applicants who are unable to 
     provide such biometric or biographic data because of a 
     physical impairment.
       (7) Background checks.--
       (A) Requirement for background checks.--The Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall utilize biometric, biographic, and 
     other data that the Secretary determines is appropriate--
       (i) to conduct security and law enforcement background 
     checks of an alien seeking relief available under this 
     subsection; and
       (ii) to determine whether there is any criminal, national 
     security, or other factor that would render the alien 
     ineligible for such relief.
       (B) Completion of background checks.--The security and law 
     enforcement background checks required by subparagraph (A) 
     shall be completed, to the satisfaction of the Secretary, 
     prior to the date the Secretary cancels the removal of the 
     alien under this subsection.
       (8) Medical examination.--An alien applying for relief 
     available under this subsection shall undergo a medical 
     observation and examination. The Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services, shall prescribe policies and procedures for 
     the nature and timing of such observation and examination.
       (9) Military selective service.--An alien applying for 
     relief available under this subsection shall establish that 
     the alien has registered under the Military Selective Service 
     Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.), if the alien is subject to 
     such registration under that Act.
       (b) Termination of Continuous Period.--For purposes of this 
     section, any period of continuous residence or continuous 
     physical presence in the United States of an alien who 
     applies for cancellation of removal under subsection (a) 
     shall not terminate when the

[[Page H8224]]

     alien is served a notice to appear under section 239(a) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229(a)).
       (c) Treatment of Certain Breaks in Presence.--
       (1) In general.--An alien shall be considered to have 
     failed to maintain continuous physical presence in the United 
     States under subsection (a) if the alien has departed from 
     the United States for any period in excess of 90 days or for 
     any periods in the aggregate exceeding 180 days.
       (2) Extensions for exceptional circumstances.--The 
     Secretary of Homeland Security may extend the time periods 
     described in paragraph (1) if the alien demonstrates that the 
     failure to timely return to the United States was due to 
     exceptional circumstances. The exceptional circumstances 
     determined sufficient to justify an extension should be no 
     less compelling than serious illness of the alien, or death 
     or serious illness of a parent, grandparent, sibling, or 
     child.
       (d) Regulations.--
       (1) Initial publication.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall publish regulations implementing this section.
       (2) Interim regulations.--Notwithstanding section 553 of 
     title 5, United States Code, the regulations required by 
     paragraph (1) shall be effective, on an interim basis, 
     immediately upon publication but may be subject to change and 
     revision after public notice and opportunity for a period of 
     public comment.
       (3) Final regulations.--Within a reasonable time after 
     publication of the interim regulations in accordance with 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     publish final regulations implementing this section.
       (e) Removal of Alien.--The Secretary of Homeland Security 
     may not remove any alien who--
       (1) has a pending application for conditional nonimmigrant 
     status under this Act; and
       (2) establishes prima facie eligibility for cancellation of 
     removal and conditional nonimmigrant status under subsection 
     (a).

     SEC. 7. CONDITIONAL NONIMMIGRANT STATUS.

       (a) Length of Status.--Conditional nonimmigrant status 
     granted under section 6 shall be valid for an initial period 
     of 5 years, subject to termination under subsection (c) of 
     this section.
       (b) Terms of Conditional Nonimmigrant Status.--
       (1) Employment.--A conditional nonimmigrant shall be 
     authorized to be employed in the United States incident to 
     conditional nonimmigrant status.
       (2) Travel.--A conditional nonimmigrant may travel outside 
     the United States and may be admitted (if otherwise 
     admissible) upon return to the United States without having 
     to obtain a visa if--
       (A) the alien is the bearer of valid, unexpired documentary 
     evidence of conditional nonimmigrant status; and
       (B) the alien's absence from the United States was not for 
     a period exceeding 180 days.
       (c) Termination of Status.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     terminate the conditional nonimmigrant status of any alien if 
     the Secretary determines that the alien--
       (A) ceases to meet the requirements of subparagraph (B) or 
     (C) of section 6(a)(1);
       (B) has become a public charge; or
       (C) has received a dishonorable or other than honorable 
     discharge from the Armed Forces.
       (2) Return to previous immigration status.--Any alien whose 
     conditional nonimmigrant status is terminated under paragraph 
     (1) shall return to the immigration status the alien had 
     immediately prior to receiving conditional nonimmigrant 
     status.
       (d) Extension of Status.--
       (1) Eligibility.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     extend the conditional nonimmigrant status of an alien for a 
     second period of 5 years if the following requirements are 
     met:
       (A) The alien has demonstrated good moral character during 
     the entire period the alien has been a conditional 
     nonimmigrant.
       (B) The alien is in compliance with section 6(a)(1)(C).
       (C) The alien has not abandoned the alien's residence in 
     the United States. For purposes of this subparagraph--
       (i) the Secretary shall presume that the alien has 
     abandoned such residence if the alien is absent from the 
     United States for more than 365 days, in the aggregate, 
     during the period of conditional nonimmigrant status, unless 
     the alien demonstrates that the alien has not abandoned the 
     alien's residence; and
       (ii) an alien who is absent from the United States due to 
     active service in the Armed Forces has not abandoned the 
     alien's residence in the United States during the period of 
     such service.
       (D) The alien--
       (i) has acquired a degree from an institution of higher 
     education in the United States or has completed at least 2 
     years, in good standing, in a program for a bachelor's degree 
     or higher degree in the United States; or
       (ii) has served in the Armed Forces for at least 2 years 
     and, if discharged, has received an honorable discharge.
       (E) The alien has provided a list of each secondary school 
     (as that term is defined in section 9101 of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801)) that 
     the alien attended in the United States.
       (2) Surcharge.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     charge and collect a surcharge of $2,000 per application on 
     all applications for an extension under this subsection. Such 
     surcharge shall be in addition to the otherwise applicable 
     application fee imposed for the purpose of recovering the 
     full costs of providing adjudication and processing services. 
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 
     286 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356), 
     any surcharge collected under this paragraph shall be 
     deposited as offsetting receipts in the General Fund of the 
     Treasury and shall not be available for obligation or 
     expenditure.
       (3) Hardship exception.--The Secretary of Homeland Security 
     may, in the Secretary's discretion, extend the conditional 
     nonimmigrant status of an alien if the alien--
       (A) satisfies the requirements of subparagraphs (A), (B), 
     and (C) of paragraph (1);
       (B) demonstrates compelling circumstances for the inability 
     to complete the requirements described in paragraph (1)(D); 
     and
       (C) demonstrates that the alien's removal from the United 
     States would result in exceptional and extremely unusual 
     hardship to the alien or the alien's spouse, parent, or child 
     who is a citizen or a lawful permanent resident of the United 
     States.

     SEC. 8. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.

       (a) In General.--A conditional nonimmigrant may file with 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security, in accordance with 
     subsection (c), an application to have the alien's status 
     adjusted to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent 
     residence. The application shall provide, under penalty of 
     perjury, the facts and information so that the Secretary may 
     make the determination described in subsection (b)(1).
       (b) Adjudication of Application for Adjustment of Status.--
       (1) In general.--If an application is filed in accordance 
     with subsection (a) for an alien, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall make a determination as to whether the alien 
     meets the requirements set out in paragraphs (1) through (4) 
     of subsection (d).
       (2) Adjustment of status if favorable determination.--If 
     the Secretary determines that the alien meets such 
     requirements, the Secretary shall notify the alien of such 
     determination and adjust the alien's status to that of an 
     alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, effective as 
     of the date of approval of the application.
       (3) Termination if adverse determination.--If the Secretary 
     determines that the alien does not meet such requirements, 
     the Secretary shall notify the alien of such determination 
     and terminate the conditional nonimmigrant status of the 
     alien as of the date of the determination.
       (c) Time to File Application.--An alien shall file an 
     application for adjustment of status during the period 
     beginning 1 year before and ending on either the date that is 
     10 years after the date of the initial grant of conditional 
     nonimmigrant status or any other expiration date of the 
     conditional nonimmigrant status as extended by the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security in accordance with this Act. The alien 
     shall be deemed to be in conditional nonimmigrant status in 
     the United States during the period in which such application 
     is pending.
       (d) Contents of Application.--Each application for an alien 
     under subsection (a) shall contain information to permit the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security to determine whether each of 
     the following requirements is met:
       (1) The alien has demonstrated good moral character during 
     the entire period the alien has been a conditional 
     nonimmigrant.
       (2) The alien is in compliance with section 6(a)(1)(C).
       (3) The alien has not abandoned the alien's residence in 
     the United States. For purposes of this paragraph--
       (A) the Secretary shall presume that the alien has 
     abandoned such residence if the alien is absent from the 
     United States for more than 730 days, in the aggregate, 
     during the period of conditional nonimmigrant status, unless 
     the alien demonstrates that the alien has not abandoned the 
     alien's residence; and
       (B) an alien who is absent from the United States due to 
     active service in the Armed Forces has not abandoned the 
     alien's residence in the United States during the period of 
     such service.
       (4) If previously granted a hardship exception under 
     section 7(d)(3) from the requirements of section 7(d)(1)(D) 
     with respect to extension of conditional nonimmigrant status, 
     the alien has subsequently complied with such requirements, 
     unless the alien is granted a hardship exception with respect 
     to adjustment of status under the criteria described in 
     section 7(d)(3).
       (e) Citizenship Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     status of a conditional nonimmigrant shall not be adjusted to 
     permanent resident status unless the alien demonstrates that 
     the alien satisfies the requirements of section 312(a) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1423(a)).
       (2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien 
     who is unable because of a physical or developmental 
     disability or mental impairment to meet the requirements of 
     such paragraph.
       (f) Payment of Federal Taxes.--

[[Page H8225]]

       (1) In general.--Not later than the date on which an 
     application is filed under subsection (a) for adjustment of 
     status, the alien shall satisfy any applicable Federal tax 
     liability due and owing on such date.
       (2) Applicable federal tax liability.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1), the term ``applicable Federal tax liability'' 
     means liability for Federal taxes imposed under the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986, including any penalties and interest 
     thereon.
       (g) Submission of Biometric and Biographic Data.--The 
     Secretary of Homeland Security may not adjust the status of 
     an alien under this section unless the alien submits 
     biometric and biographic data, in accordance with procedures 
     established by the Secretary. The Secretary shall provide an 
     alternative procedure for applicants who are unable to 
     provide such biometric or biographic data because of a 
     physical impairment.
       (h) Background Checks.--
       (1) Requirement for background checks.--The Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall utilize biometric, biographic, and 
     other data that the Secretary determines appropriate--
       (A) to conduct security and law enforcement background 
     checks of an alien applying for adjustment of status under 
     this section; and
       (B) to determine whether there is any criminal, national 
     security, or other factor that would render the alien 
     ineligible for such adjustment of status.
       (2) Completion of background checks.--The security and law 
     enforcement background checks required by paragraph (1) shall 
     be completed, to the satisfaction of the Secretary, prior to 
     the date the Secretary grants adjustment of status.
       (i) Exemption From Numerical Limitations.--Nothing in this 
     section or in any other law may be construed to apply a 
     numerical limitation on the number of aliens who may be 
     eligible for adjustment of status under this section.
       (j) Eligibility for Naturalization.--An alien whose status 
     is adjusted under this section to that of an alien lawfully 
     admitted for permanent residence may be naturalized upon 
     compliance with all the requirements of the immigration laws 
     except the provisions of paragraph (1) of section 316(a) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1427(a)), if 
     such person immediately preceding the date of filing the 
     application for naturalization has resided continuously, 
     after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, within 
     the United States for at least 3 years, and has been 
     physically present in the United States for periods totaling 
     at least half of that time and has resided within the State 
     or the district of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
     in the United States in which the applicant filed the 
     application for at least 3 months. An alien described in this 
     subsection may file the application for naturalization as 
     provided in the second sentence of subsection (a) of section 
     334 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1445).

     SEC. 9. TREATMENT OF ALIENS MEETING REQUIREMENTS FOR 
                   EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL NONIMMIGRANT STATUS.

       If, on the date of the enactment of this Act, an alien has 
     satisfied all the requirements of section 6(a)(1) and section 
     7(d)(1)(D), the Secretary of Homeland Security may cancel 
     removal and grant conditional nonimmigrant status in 
     accordance with section 6, and may extend conditional 
     nonimmigrant status in accordance with section 7(d). The 
     alien may apply for adjustment of status in accordance with 
     section 8(a) if the alien has met the requirements of 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of section 7(d)(1) during the 
     entire period of conditional nonimmigrant status.

     SEC. 10. EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     have exclusive jurisdiction to determine eligibility for 
     relief under sections 6 through 16 of this Act, except where 
     the alien has been placed into deportation, exclusion, or 
     removal proceedings either prior to or after filing an 
     application for cancellation of removal and conditional 
     nonimmigrant status or adjustment of status under this Act, 
     in which case the Attorney General shall have exclusive 
     jurisdiction and shall assume all the powers and duties of 
     the Secretary until proceedings are terminated, or if a final 
     order of deportation, exclusion, or removal is entered the 
     Secretary shall resume all powers and duties delegated to the 
     Secretary under this Act. If the Secretary grants relief 
     under sections 6 through 16 of this Act, the final order of 
     deportation, exclusion, or removal shall be terminated.
       (b) Stay of Removal of Certain Aliens Enrolled in Primary 
     or Secondary School.--
       (1) In general.--The Attorney General shall stay the 
     removal proceedings of any alien who--
       (A) meets all the requirements of subparagraphs (A), (B), 
     (C), and (E) of section 6(a)(1);
       (B) is at least 12 years of age; and
       (C) is enrolled full-time in a primary or secondary school.
       (2) Aliens not in removal proceedings.--For aliens who are 
     not in removal proceedings, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall not commence such proceedings with respect to 
     the alien if the alien meets the requirements of 
     subparagraphs (A) through (C) of paragraph (1).
       (c) Employment.--An alien whose removal is stayed pursuant 
     to subsection (b)(1) may be engaged in employment in the 
     United States consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act 
     (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) and State and local laws governing 
     minimum age for employment.
       (d) Lift of Stay.--The Attorney General shall lift the stay 
     granted pursuant to subsection (b)(1) if the alien--
       (1) is no longer enrolled in a primary or secondary school; 
     or
       (2) ceases to meet the requirements of such subsection.

     SEC. 11. PENALTIES FOR FALSE STATEMENTS.

       Whoever files an application for any benefit under sections 
     6 through 16 of this Act and willfully and knowingly 
     falsifies, misrepresents, or conceals a material fact or 
     makes any false or fraudulent statement or representation, or 
     makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same 
     to contain any false or fraudulent statement or entry, shall 
     be fined in accordance with title 18, United States Code, 
     imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

     SEC. 12. CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.

       (a) Prohibition.--Except as provided in subsection (b), no 
     officer or employee of the United States may--
       (1) use the information furnished by an individual pursuant 
     to an application filed under sections 6 through 16 of this 
     Act to initiate removal proceedings against any person 
     identified in the application;
       (2) make any publication whereby the information furnished 
     by any particular individual pursuant to an application under 
     sections 6 through 16 of this Act can be identified; or
       (3) permit anyone other than an officer or employee of the 
     United States Government or, in the case of an application 
     filed under sections 6 through 16 of this Act with a 
     designated entity, that designated entity, to examine such 
     application filed under such sections.
       (b) Required Disclosure.--The Attorney General or the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide the information 
     furnished under sections 6 through 16 of this Act, and any 
     other information derived from such furnished information, 
     to--
       (1) a Federal, State, tribal, or local law enforcement 
     agency, intelligence agency, national security agency, 
     component of the Department of Homeland Security, court, or 
     grand jury in connection with a criminal investigation or 
     prosecution, a background check conducted pursuant to the 
     Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act (Public Law 103-159; 
     107 Stat. 1536) or an amendment made by that Act, or for 
     homeland security or national security purposes, if such 
     information is requested by such entity or consistent with an 
     information sharing agreement or mechanism; or
       (2) an official coroner for purposes of affirmatively 
     identifying a deceased individual (whether or not such 
     individual is deceased as a result of a crime).
       (c) Fraud in Application Process or Criminal Conduct.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, 
     information concerning whether an alien seeking relief under 
     sections 6 through 16 of this Act has engaged in fraud in an 
     application for such relief or at any time committed a crime 
     may be used or released for immigration enforcement, law 
     enforcement, or national security purposes.
       (d) Penalty.--Whoever knowingly uses, publishes, or permits 
     information to be examined in violation of this section shall 
     be fined not more than $10,000.

     SEC. 13. HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE.

       Notwithstanding any provision of the Higher Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), with respect to assistance 
     provided under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), an alien who is granted conditional 
     nonimmigrant status or lawful permanent resident status under 
     this Act shall be eligible only for the following assistance 
     under such title:
       (1) Student loans under parts D and E of such title IV (20 
     U.S.C. 1087a et seq., 1087aa et seq.), subject to the 
     requirements of such parts.
       (2) Federal work-study programs under part C of such title 
     IV (42 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), subject to the requirements of 
     such part.
       (3) Services under such title IV (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), 
     subject to the requirements for such services.

     SEC. 14. TREATMENT OF CONDITIONAL NONIMMIGRANTS FOR CERTAIN 
                   PURPOSES.

       (a) In General.--An individual granted conditional 
     nonimmigrant status under this Act shall, while such 
     individual remains in such status, be considered lawfully 
     present for all purposes except--
       (1) section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (concerning premium tax credits), as added by section 1401 of 
     the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 
     111-148); and
       (2) section 1402 of the Patient Protection and Affordable 
     Care Act (concerning reduced cost sharing; 42 U.S.C. 18071).
       (b) For Purposes of the 5-year Eligibility Waiting Period 
     Under PRWORA.--An individual who has met the requirements 
     under this Act for adjustment from conditional nonimmigrant 
     status to lawful permanent resident status shall be 
     considered, as of the date of such adjustment, to have 
     completed the 5-year period specified in section 403 of the 
     Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 
     Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1613).

[[Page H8226]]

     SEC. 15. MILITARY ENLISTMENT.

       Section 504(b)(1) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) An alien who is a conditional nonimmigrant (as that 
     term is defined in section 5 of the DREAM Act of 2010).''.

     SEC. 16. GAO REPORT.

       Not later than 7 years after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and 
     the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives a report setting forth--
       (1) the number of aliens who were eligible for cancellation 
     of removal and grant of conditional nonimmigrant status under 
     section 6(a);
       (2) the number of aliens who applied for cancellation of 
     removal and grant of conditional nonimmigrant status under 
     section 6(a);
       (3) the number of aliens who were granted conditional 
     nonimmigrant status under section 6(a); and
       (4) the number of aliens whose status was adjusted to that 
     of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence under 
     section 8.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1756, the 
motion shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by 
the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, I have heard so much 
misinformation about the DREAM Act that I hardly know where to begin. 
First of all, this is not a new bill. It has existed for a decade. It 
is a bipartisan bill to address the plight of children who were brought 
to the United States as undocumented immigrants and grew up here.
  And this bill has been introduced in every Congress, starting on May 
21, 2001, there was a hearing. The Senate, the other body, heard a 
hearing on the bill, August 1, it was started out. In 2003, April 19, 
the bill was reintroduced by our colleague from California (Mr. 
Berman). On July 31, it was again reintroduced into the Senate. On 
April 6, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle introduced the 
bill. November 18, 2005, a Senator from Illinois introduced the bill. 
I've got two pages of bills. We have had five hearings.
  So for anybody to say there hasn't been due process on this bill, I 
hope they feel gently corrected by the research that my staff has done 
to make it clear that there has been an extensive legislative history 
on this bill.
  Now, the second thing that I've heard so much about is that the DREAM 
Act is not very popular. And again, we rushed to our research and we 
found that the bill is very popular. Most Americans support the DREAM 
Act. Poll after poll, the majority of Americans approve of the DREAM 
Act, and there will be more information coming from this.
  Now, the next thing that we ought to really settle down and accept as 
fact is that the DREAM Act will not take jobs from Americans. The 
reason that is pretty clear is that all the major unions in America 
support and endorse the DREAM Act, and they're doing it because it's 
not taking jobs away from their members--AFL, SEIU, UNITE HERE, UAW, 
NEA, AFT, and others.
  So now that we have some of this cleared up, the next thing I would 
like to point out is that there are requirements. These are not 
illegals. These are undocumented kids. They didn't commit a criminal 
act. They thought they were born here to begin with. Their parents 
brought them here.

                              {time}  1900

  Look, the conditions are so, so voluminous. First of all, the only 
people eligible are children brought here to the United States, and 
they have to be less than 29 years old to even qualify. They must have 
lived in the United States at least for 5 years. They must have 
graduated from an American high school or be admitted to an institution 
of higher education, and they must submit biometric information and 
complete security and law enforcement background checks.
  So this is a very rigorous bill. And the last piece of doggerel that 
I should get rid of is the fact that you can go into the United States 
military real quickly and be processed as a citizen. Not true. As a 
matter of fact, you cannot join the military if you are an undocumented 
person. Yes, that's right.
  So now that we've got some of the misunderstanding out of the way, I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill. The DREAM Act is a nightmare for the 
American people. It insults American workers, American taxpayers, and 
anyone who believes in the rule of law. How can we consider amnesty for 
millions of illegal immigrants when just last Friday, the Department of 
Labor reported that unemployment in America jumped up to 9.8 percent? 
This is the 19th straight month, a new record where the jobless rate 
has stayed above 9 percent.
  The American people want us to focus on creating jobs and getting 
Americans back to work. Instead, the Democrats have brought the DREAM 
Act to the floor. This bill prevents Americans from getting jobs since 
millions of illegal immigrants will become eligible to work legally in 
the United States. American workers should not have to compete with 
illegal workers for scarce jobs.
  Over 27 million Americans are out of work, have given up looking for 
work, or are underemployed. The percent of Hispanics out of work last 
month rose to 13 percent, and the unemployment rate for black Americans 
has hit 16 percent. Don't the Democrats know this? Are they listening 
to the voters? Do they care? This bill proves that there is a total 
disconnect between the Democratic Party and the American people.
  The majority has brought this bill to the floor without holding any 
hearings on its impact and without committee approval, so Members don't 
know how the bill would work or not work. In fact, the text we are 
considering tonight was only introduced last night.
  As usual under the Democratic regime, no amendments are allowed. They 
have even eliminated the one motion Republicans are supposedly 
guaranteed as a way to address the people's concerns, the motion to 
recommit. What happened to the Democrats' promise to give Americans 24 
hours to read the bills? And what happened to their promise of an open 
and fair process? These and other promises disappeared long before the 
election, which is another reason the election turned out as it did.
  The bill's supporters imply that the DREAM Act only applies to kids 
in schools. But in reality, the bill applies to illegal immigrants up 
to the age of 30. Those are pretty old kids. And once these individuals 
become U.S. citizens, they can petition for their illegal immigrant 
parents and adult brothers and sisters to be legalize who will bring in 
others in an endless chain.
  According to the Migration Policy Institute, the DREAM Act would mean 
amnesty for over 2 million illegal immigrants, but that number likely 
will be higher since many illegal immigrants will fraudulently claim 
they came here as children or are under 30, and the Federal Government 
has no way to check whether their claims are true or not. Such massive 
fraud occurred after the 1986 amnesty for illegal immigrants who 
claimed that they were agricultural workers. Studies found two-thirds 
of all applications for the 1986 amnesty were fraudulent. DREAM Act 
applicants don't even have to comply with the requirements for amnesty 
set out in the bill. They can get a waiver for hardship at the 
discretion of the Department of Homeland Security. Under this 
administration, which favors mass amnesty, we can assume that nearly 
everyone who applies will get a hardship pass.
  The DREAM Act also makes it possible for almost any illegal immigrant 
to evade the law. Once they file an application, no matter how 
fraudulent, the Federal Government is prohibited from deporting them. 
The bill requires that background checks be conducted on the 
beneficiaries, but it will be almost impossible for the Federal 
Government to verify whether someone is who they say they are and 
whether they meet the requirements of the bill. Furthermore, any 
discussion of amnesty encourages additional illegal immigration. 
Already at least 1 million illegal immigrants cross our borders each 
year. The bill will push that number even higher.

[[Page H8227]]

  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill will increase 
deficits after 2020. And if the health care debate is any indication of 
how CBO scores bills, then the actual cost of the DREAM Act will, of 
course, be much higher. And once a DREAM Act beneficiary obtains lawful 
status, they are automatically exempt from the current 5-year waiting 
period to receive public welfare benefits, so the cost of welfare 
benefits will be huge.
  We all know that the point of this bill is to give amnesty to anyone 
who is in the country illegally and who is under 30 years old. Illegal 
immigrants get amnesty if they have attended college or served in the 
military. Illegal immigrants get amnesty if they can show hardship if 
they are sent home. Illegal immigrants get to stay if they just claim 
to be eligible under this legislation. Illegal immigrants get amnesty 
if they use fraudulent documents, because the Federal Government has no 
way to check millions of claims. Illegal immigrants get amnesty even if 
they have committed crimes, like driving under the influence, passport 
fraud, and visa fraud. This is a bill that gives amnesty to 2 million 
or more people in the country illegally. It encourages fraud and more 
illegal immigration on a massive scale.
  There have been no hearings on this bill, no amendments allowed, and 
those who are opposed only have 30 minutes to discuss this bill. This 
is a desecration of the democratic process and an insult to Americans 
who believe in the rule of law. The DREAM Act hurts millions of 
Americans who have lost their jobs, are underemployed, or are 
threatened with layoffs. It puts the interests of illegal immigrants 
ahead of those law-abiding Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to strongly oppose this bill, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona for a unanimous consent request.
  (Mr. PASTOR of Arizona asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
5281.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge passage of H.R. 5281, the 
Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors, DREAM, Act.
  The DREAM Act would create a pathway to citizenship for undocumented 
young people, who were brought to the U.S. as children, raised in this 
country, have excelled in our education systems, and have expressed a 
clear commitment to pursue higher education or military service. Many 
of these young people currently live in Arizona's Fourth Congressional 
district, and under this bill, these bright and ambitious individuals 
will receive the opportunity to reap the full benefits of their 
educational advancements and military service by eventually obtaining 
legal citizenship.
  Such an achievement is advantageous not only for these young people 
and their families, but for our communities and our Nation as a whole. 
It is largely known that over a lifetime, a million-dollar difference 
exists between the earning capacity of a high school graduate and a 
college graduate. Research also shows that college graduates are more 
likely to volunteer and participate in their communities, and are less 
likely to be incarcerated or be recipients of public assistance. The 
earning power of college graduates also translates into important tax 
revenues for our Federal, State, and local treasuries, a point 
particularly poignant during this time of large deficits.
  The DREAM Act has received support from the Secretaries of Defense, 
Homeland Security, Education, and Labor. Secretary Gates has offered 
his endorsement of the proposal which would provide children of non-
resident immigrants a clear path to U.S. citizenship through military 
service. We know the sacrifice asked of our service members and their 
families, and if these individuals are willing to make such a 
commitment, we should honor their decision by extending full 
citizenship rights. In considering the Department of Defense's 
challenges with recruitment and readiness, passage of the DREAM Act 
would ensure access to a new pool of eligible youth, ready to serve the 
U.S. military and wear its respective uniforms.
  Passage of the DREAM Act will reward the good decisions of many young 
people in my district, individuals who are placing their education at 
the forefront of their responsibilities, and who possess strong values 
beneficial to our Arizona communities and neighborhoods. As a body of 
Members who have collectively attained a high degree of education, we 
know the benefits we have received from our hard work and dedication. 
We must support legislation which rewards the same characteristics of 
diligence and commitment, allowing these young people to fully benefit, 
as U.S. citizens, from their accomplishments.
  I know students in my district who have been patiently waiting for 
passage of the DREAM Act. I truly am honored to represent this group of 
intelligent and driven young people, as I know their character and 
their desire to not only better their futures and that of their 
families, but also this Nation; a country in which they acknowledge has 
befitted them with great opportunities. I am confident these young 
people, through their intellectual contributions and military service, 
will continue to give back to a Nation they love so dearly and call 
their own.
  I ask my Colleagues to join me in supporting the important passage of 
H.R. 5281, the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors, 
DREAM, Act.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to Shelley Berkley of Nevada for a 
unanimous consent request.
  (Ms. BERKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. BERKLEY. I rise in enthusiastic support of this legislation.
  Every year my office receives dozens of calls in May from youngsters 
17-18 years old. They have recently graduated from local high schools, 
been accepted to college--many at UNLV applied for a millennium 
scholarship, available in Nevada to the best and brightest of our 
Nevada high school graduates. According to state law they have to 
demonstrate proof of citizenship. They go home, ask their parents for 
their birth certificate--then they learn the truth--when they were 6 
months, 1 year, 2 years old--their parents came over the border and 
brought their child with them.
  Now, 18 years later, these children are Americans. They think like 
Americans, live like Americans, speak like Americans; were educated in 
our schools side by side with our children, they know no other country, 
they did nothing wrong, they have broken no law intentionally.
  We American taxpayers have invested a great deal in these youngsters. 
Our tax dollars have helped educate them. They are smart, talented, 
hardworking Americans, ambitious, just the kind of people we want and 
we need for the future of our own beloved country.
  Others are willing to don the uniform of our Nation and fight for us 
in Iraq and Afghanistan--brave, strong men and women--the very kind of 
people we want and we need for the future of this country.
  Let us pass this bill and provide a path to citizenship for the best 
and the brightest of our youngsters, those willing to volunteer to 
fight and possibly die for the United States of America. Let us share 
the American dream with these youngsters who have no other Dream but 
ours.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlelady from California, Zoe Lofgren, who has worked for years on 
this legislation, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, the Immigration 
Subcommittee, which I chair, held 17 hearings in 2007 to examine every 
aspect of immigration reform, and one of the most memorable in the 
series of hearings was the hearing on the plight of undocumented young 
people who have been brought to the United States as children, 
including Tam Tran, then a Ph.D. candidate at UCLA who tragically later 
lost her life in an auto accident. They grew up in the United States, 
attended American high schools, often knowing no other country as home, 
no language other than English, yet they were faced with a dead end 
once they graduated from high school. Their immigration status 
prevented them from working, paying taxes, serving in the military. 
They could never get right with the law, even though they had done 
nothing wrong. The only thing they had done was to obey their parents.
  The DREAM Act would allow these young people to apply for conditional 
immigration status with a series of conditions and would allow these 
young people to step forward, register, pay their taxes, get right with 
the law, and contribute to this wonderful country.

                              {time}  1910

  You know, we hear a lot about the rule of law. I think it is worth 
remembering that we write the laws in this

[[Page H8228]]

country, and we need to address this issue. The Congressional Budget 
Office tells us that this bill, if we pass it, will increase revenues 
by $1.7 billion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 10 seconds.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. We will have a $2.2 billion deficit 
reduction over the next 10 years. So we can do the right policy and 
also have the right fiscal impact by passing this bill. I recommend 
that we help these innocent children who did nothing wrong.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King), the ranking member of the Immigration 
Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding.
  I rise in opposition to this bill, to this bill that has a nice name. 
But it is really not a dream; it is a nightmare. It is a nightmare to 
the rule of law.
  As the gentlewoman from California said, we do write the laws in this 
country, and we have written the laws that limit people from coming 
into the United States illegally. And it seems to be forgotten that 
under even this legislation that is proposed, someone who is one day 
short of their 16th birthday could sneak across the border in the 
United States, claim they were here for 5 years, they could go on a Web 
site, how about www.diplomacompany.com, get themselves a GED, and 
qualify for the DREAM Act if they were just accepted into a tech 
school, to, say, go to barber school or plumber school. That is kind of 
the minimum.
  And it isn't they are doing this on their 16th birthday. They can do 
so the day before their 30th birthday. They can lie about their age. 
The comments about there being biometric information and a background 
check, we can't do background checks on people that don't have a legal 
existence in their own country. About half of the people that are born 
south of the border don't have a birth certificate, unless they were 
born in a hospital. It is about 50-50, which means no legal existence. 
There is not a way to do a background check.
  The score on this, the cost, is a lot higher than the proponents 
would like to admit. They argue it is a marginal savings. It also says 
in the same CBO score that in the second decade it is estimated at $5 
billion, and likely $5 billion for each decade after that. That is 
probably not a big deal in the context of this spending, Mr. Speaker, 
but it is a big deal when you look at the Center for Immigration 
Studies' score, a cost to local government at $6.2 billion. That is 
every year; at least the first couple of years they have estimated 
this.
  It triples the number of green cards, it provides safe harbor for 
those who file for a number of things, and ties up our courts and our 
litigation system that we have. There is an exemption for even fraud 
against immigration laws in the United States.
  So what we really have is this scenario, this scenario, Mr. Speaker. 
This is the moral and ethical conundrum that cannot be reconciled by 
anybody in this Chamber, or anybody in this country, for that matter.
  When you have the recipients of the DREAM Act, should this become 
law, sitting in a classroom, a community college, a university, being 
the beneficiaries of a de facto scholarship, and in California it is 
free, no tuition for a California resident, and next to them at a desk 
will be a husband or a wife who is aggrieved, having lost their spouse 
fighting for our liberty in Iraq or Afghanistan, paying out-of-state 
tuition, in California $22,021 a year, paying out-of-state tuition for 
defending our rule of law, while someone who is being rewarded for 
breaking it is getting free tuition.
  That is just California. In Iowa, it is a little different. It is 
about a three-to-one break, in-state versus out-of-state. That is what 
this necessarily brings.
  If you support this nightmare DREAM Act, you are actually supporting 
an ``affirmative action amnesty act'' that rewards people for breaking 
the law and punishes those who defend America.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to explain how the 
biometric business works to my good friend on the Judiciary Committee.
  See, that is fingerprints and eye scans, and the FBI uses it, and 
they are pretty foolproof.
  The people that you are talking about that go back and come forward, 
these kids, Steve, grew up in America. That is where they started. They 
haven't been anywhere else. You come here as a kid and you can't 
qualify. So there are records. They went to school, they did something, 
they lived somewhere. So there are records, and you don't have to go 
back to wherever their parents may have come from to do it.
  I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chaka Fattah, for a 
unanimous consent request.
  (Mr. FATTAH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FATTAH. Let me thank the distinguished chairman.
  I rise in support of the DREAM Act.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois, Danny Davis, for 
the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.
  (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I rise in strong support of H.R. 1751, the 
America DREAM Act.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, to my friends on the other 
side of the aisle, these children have not broken the law, these are 
not criminals, and the only nightmare that I can imagine is the 
nightmare of violating the rights of these wonderful children who want 
an opportunity to serve America.
  First of all, they have to be in the country for 5 years already, and 
they cannot change their status for another 10 years. It could be 
almost 20 years. And then you have the opportunity for them to invest 
in this country after they have received their education equaling up to 
$1 trillion. Do we violate our rights and our beliefs that we all are 
created equal?
  So I ask my colleagues to support a DREAM Act that invests in 
America, that allows individuals to serve America. It is not amnesty; 
it is people wanting to serve this country, to pledge allegiance to the 
flag of the United States of America.
  Stand for what is right. Vote for the DREAM Act. Believe in our 
values. We are all created equal.
  I rise today in strong support of the Development, Relief, and 
Education for Alien Minors Act, better known as the DREAM Act.
  The DREAM Act is designed to provide a path to legal status for young 
people of good moral character brought to the United States as 
children. There are an estimated 2.1 million undocumented children and 
young adults in the United States who might be eligible to receive 
legal status under the DREAM Act. My home state of Texas is home to 12 
percent of potential DREAM Act beneficiaries, second only to California 
(26 percent).
  Each year, tens of thousands of these undocumented students graduate 
from primary or secondary school, often at the top of their classes. 
They have the potential to be future doctors, nurses, teachers, and 
entrepreneurs, but they experience unique hurdles to achieving success 
in this country. Through no fault of their own, their lack of status 
may prevent them from attending college, working legally, and joining 
the military. The DREAM Act would provide an opportunity for them to 
live up to their full potential and make greater contributions to the 
U.S. economy and society.
  These students are culturally American, growing up here and often 
having little attachment to their country of birth. They tend to be 
bicultural and fluent in English. They are honor roll students, 
athletes, class presidents, valedictorians, and aspiring teachers, 
engineers, and doctors. Yet, because of their immigration status, their 
day-to-day lives are severely restricted and their futures are 
uncertain. They cannot legally drive, vote, or work. Moreover, at any 
time, these young men and women can be, and sometimes are, deported to 
countries they barely know.
  Not only will the DREAM Act provide undocumented youth with the 
opportunity to achieve their dreams, but it will also have a positive 
impact on our economy. DREAM eligible students are already working hard 
and contributing to this economy and will not create new competition 
for Americans. Removing the uncertainty of undocumented status allows 
legalized immigrants to earn higher wages and move into higher-paying 
occupations, and also encourages them to invest more in their own 
education, open bank accounts, buy homes, and start businesses.

[[Page H8229]]

  By allowing these students to come out of the shadows and work 
legally in the U.S., we will expand our Nation's tax base and will 
essentially be making an investment in our country. According to the 
Joint Committee on Taxation, over a period of 10 years, increasing the 
number of authorized workers in the United States would increase tax 
revenues by at least $2.3 billion. Moreover, the Congressional Budget 
Office found that the DREAM Act would also help to reduce the deficit 
by $1.4 billion over 10 years.
  Despite the potential good that would come from enactment of the 
DREAM Act, there are still misconceptions about what exactly it will 
do. The DREAM Act does not provide blanket amnesty, but rather, it 
creates a narrowly tailored process to put young people on the path to 
legalization. These young people must meet certain criteria, including 
living in the United States the majority of their lives, graduating 
from high school, and completing at least two years of college. They 
must also exhibit characteristics of good moral character. Criminals or 
those who pose a threat to our national security would remain 
ineligible and be subject to deportation.
  Furthermore, the DREAM Act does not give undocumented students 
immediate citizenships. In fact, it only provides for conditional 
status, which imposes heavy requirements on students before they can 
even apply for citizenship, including paying back taxes and 
demonstrating the ability to read, write, and speak English. It will 
take more 20 years before an individual will have the ability to 
achieve full citizenship in the United States. Moreover, it will take 
more than 28 years before an individual given legal status under the 
DREAM Act will be able to petition for a relative to come to the United 
States.
  In my global travels to places like Africa, Asia, and Latin America, 
I have had the opportunity to interact with many children. Despite 
their many differences, there is one unifying factor--their love, 
respect, and adoration for the United States of America. The 
Declaration of Independence reminds us that we are all created equal. 
The students who would be impacted by the DREAM Act are more like you 
and me than most realize, and they deserve to have the ability to 
participate and contribute to America.
  The DREAM Act is supported by military leaders, labor unions, 
business leaders, and a majority of American voters. I would like to 
tell you about Lucy Martinez, a second-year undocumented student at 
University of Texas at San Antonio who is among seven protesters who've 
refused to eat for 22 days to express her support for The DREAM Act. 
When asked why she and her fellow protestors chose to go on this hunger 
strike, she responded that she wants us to ``recognize our sacrifice 
and hard work. That we want to contribute to this country. We don't 
have the privilege of waiting. Our future is on the line.''
  It is time that we decide whether to stand with this broad-based 
coalition, or continue to unfairly punish young people who were brought 
to this country through no fault of their own. I ask my colleagues to 
stand with me today and vote in favor of the DREAM Act.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who is the vice-ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
rise in strong opposition to this legislation.
  I say to my good friend, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
this bill has been around for a long time for good reason. It is a bad 
bill, having been around for a long time, for this entire Congress, for 
2 years, no hearing in the Judiciary Committee, no hearing in the 
chairman's committee for the entire 2 years, and now here we are within 
a week of adjourning the Congress, still no hearing. No opportunity for 
people to come in and testify before the Congress about how this would 
work, how we will screen out the people who will commit fraud under 
this, how unfair it is to people who wait for years, who are legally 
going through the process of becoming immigrants. No opportunity in the 
committee to improve the bill. No opportunity to offer amendments. Why? 
Because no markup was held for 2 years.
  Now, the indignity of it all is that here in the closing days of the 
Congress, when this bill has been brought forward in this urgent 
manner, we are not even given the opportunity, as the minority is 
always given, to offer a motion to recommit, no opportunity to amend 
this bill in any way, shape or form, as though this was perfectly drawn 
and perfectly brought here, and that anybody who was not in the small 
room where the final version of this, totally without the inspection of 
the American people, totally without the opportunity for anybody to 
participate, brought here in some perfect manner; and now, of course, 
we are going to pass it without even the opportunity for the minority 
to offer changes to the bill.
  The American people have recently demonstrated their strong 
opposition to amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants, yet the DREAM 
Act offers amnesty to illegal immigrants who entered the U.S. before 
they were 16 years old. It grants them permanent residence and then 
citizenship once they have completed 2 years of college or have served 
in the armed services, unless the Department of Homeland Security 
waives these requirements because of hardship, something not defined in 
the bill, a very, very big loophole.
  According to the Migration Policy Institute, the DREAM Act could mean 
mass amnesty for 2.1 million illegal immigrants. Fraud will likely 
drive the number much higher as illegal immigrants discovery how easy 
it is to claim that they arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16.
  The same thing occurred after the 1986 amnesty bill, the Immigration 
Reform and Control Act, was enacted. Everyone said that was going to 
end illegal immigration. It opened the doors to more. This is going to 
do exactly the same thing.
  The DREAM Act makes it easy for almost any illegal immigrant, even 
those who do not qualify for this amnesty, to evade the law. Once an 
alien, no matter who they are, files an application, no matter how 
spurious, the Federal Government is prohibited from deporting that 
illegal immigrant. This is ripe for fraud and is unfair and should be 
opposed.
  And once the DREAM Act beneficiaries apply for amnesty, they will be 
given work authorization. So these individuals who have broken the law 
will be legitimately competing for jobs with the 9.8 percent of 
Americans who are currently unemployed.
  The DREAM Act subsidizes the college education of illegal immigrants 
at taxpayer (expense. DREAM Act beneficiaries are eligible for certain 
higher education assistance programs including subsidized and 
unsubsidized Federal Stafford student loans. Taxpayers pay the interest 
on unsubsidized Stafford loans as long as the borrower is in school. 
And DREAM Act beneficiaries are eligible for Perkins loans, work study 
and certain other college access and college persistence programs--all 
of which are funded at least in part by the U.S. taxpayer. In addition, 
both Stafford and Perkins loans are eligible for loan forgiveness after 
certain requirements are met. So some illegal immigrants will not even 
be required to pay back the money they borrowed from U.S. taxpayers. 
U.S. citizens should be first in line to receive taxpayer subsidies--
not those who are violating Federal law.
  Once a DREAM Act beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence he is 
automatically exempt from the 5-year wait period specified in section 
403 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 
Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1613), to receive means-tested public welfare 
benefits. The costs of this to American taxpayers could be enormous.
  DREAM Act beneficiaries are required to undergo background checks to 
the ``satisfaction'' of the Secretary of Homeland Security. But there 
is no way to verify that the person is who they say they are.
  The DREAM Act will encourage more illegal immigration since illegal 
immigrant parents will bring their children with them in the 
expectation that they will benefit from another DREAM Act. The DREAM 
Act is a dream for those who have broken the law, but a nightmare for 
law-abiding and taxpaying Americans.

                              {time}  1920

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 45 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), a distinguished member of the 
committee.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1751. The DREAM 
Act is bipartisan targeted legislation that gives students who are 
already here and have grown up in the United States a chance to 
contribute to our country's well-being by serving in the Armed Forces 
or pursuing a higher education.
  This bill is good for our economy, our security and our Nation. If 
you take a look some of the bill's key provisions, you will see that 
this was well thought through. This is no throwaway. This is no 
giveaway. These students have to earn the right to this DREAM Act.
  I would simply ask my colleagues to consider, having been brought to 
this country as a child, it is something that

[[Page H8230]]

we can do to make sure that we integrate them into our society and they 
contribute to it in a substantial way.
  I would ask for an ``aye'' vote on this important legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), chair of the Subcommittee on 
Courts of the House Judiciary Committee, and also a former magistrate.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I am grateful and proud that my bill, H.R. 5281, the 
Removal Clarification Act of 2010, is the vehicle through which the 
DREAM Act comes to the floor today. My bill will enable Federal 
officials to remove cases filed against them to Federal Court in 
accordance with the spirit and intent of the Federal Officer Removal 
statute. By attaching the DREAM Act to this noncontroversial bipartisan 
bill, we are able to expedite the process.
  I am also proud to support the DREAM Act. This bipartisan legislation 
addresses the tragedy young undocumented people face when, through no 
fault of their own, their lack of legal status may prevent them from 
attending college, joining the military, or working legally in the 
United States.
  In my home State of Georgia, there are 74,000 undocumented young 
people who could potentially benefit from passage of the DREAM Act. 
Last week, I spent time helping a potential ``Dreamer'' beneficiary in 
my district whose parents brought him from Mexico when he was 5 years 
old. Because of current law, he is unable to follow his dream and 
attend college. He, along with millions of undocumented youth, deserves 
an opportunity to stay and help strengthen this Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the DREAM Act. When I think back 
to the early days of our country and its inception and what we were 
founded on, it was on freedom, it was on liberty, it was on the 
opportunity to dream and to achieve a better future for one's self. 
That is what has made us great, and that is what has made us 
exceptional among all nations on this globe.
  But make no mistake, this bill is not the American Dream. This bill 
is the amnesty dream. This bill will give amnesty to nearly 2 million 
illegal immigrants right away, while providing a pathway to amnesty to 
encourage millions more illegal immigrants to enter our country.
  Adults up to 30 years old will now be eligible for amnesty as a 
result of this. If a person who illegally enters this country will 
receive amnesty through this bill, you can bet they will petition, 
because of this bill, to have their relatives join them. Illegal 
immigrants who have been convicted of less than three misdemeanors are 
eligible for amnesty through this bill. Lastly, anyone who simply 
applies for the program will have temporary amnesty.
  Earlier we heard that this is not about illegal immigrants, that this 
is about undocumented persons. Well, that begs the question. If one is 
undocumented, how could you even verify their age or eligibility for 
this very program?
  This is no dream. This is a nightmare. This is a nightmare for the 
taxpayers of our country. This is a nightmare for America itself. 
Besides the fundamental problem of rewarding and incentivizing illegal 
behavior, this bill worsens our debt and puts a further strain on 
American families.
  Simply put, an open-door amnesty policy, with no spending cap, no 
limit in scope and a free invitation to all the Federal benefits of 
this country, adds up to a cost that our taxpayers cannot afford. I 
urge my colleagues tonight to vote for the American Dream by rejecting 
the amnesty dream.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller), chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, for 
a unanimous consent request.
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the DREAM Act. It is good 
for our country, it is good for our economy, and it is very important 
to the future contributions of these young people to American society.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the DREAM Act.
  This is common sense, bipartisan legislation that is a win for our 
economy.
  First, in this economy, we need the best, the brightest, the most 
capable and the most qualified to be a part of the American workforce.
  This legislation will allow a limited group of very capable, high 
achieving young people to help contribute to the economic well-being of 
this country.
  These are young people who didn't come to this country through their 
own free choice.
  But, they are young people who have worked hard to graduate high 
school or obtain a GED.
  These are young people who have contributed to their communities and 
to this country.
  If we turn our backs on these students, then we're turning our backs 
on a qualified and competitive workforce.
  Second, Mr. Speaker, simply put, this legislation is the right thing 
to do.
  Critics who argue that the DREAM Act would diminish opportunities for 
students in this country with full citizenship must not know anything 
about our colleges and universities.
  Our Nation's higher education institutions have the capacity to 
welcome these students, as many already do, without closing the door 
for other students.
  This Congress has passed historic legislation to increase college 
access and opportunity for all students.
  The bill before us today continues to provide that access to a higher 
education not only by providing these students a path to citizenship, 
but allowing them access to critical student aid through loans and 
work-study.
  The financial cost of a higher education is too often a barrier to 
attending higher education.
  It is critical that this bill ensures access to student aid, and 
gives students a chance at affording a higher education.
  By passing this legislation, we can reward smart, civic-minded, goal-
oriented students and provide access to the American dream.
  Let's not punish students and the future of this country.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A Member asking to insert remarks may 
include a simple declaration of sentiment toward the question under 
debate, but should not embellish the request with extended oratory.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my faith and my values teach me we 
do not punish children for decisions made by their parents. That's why 
I rise in support of the DREAM Act. Common sense tells me that 
thousands of decent, hardworking young people and our country will be 
better off by bringing them out of the shadows of our society and 
giving them the opportunity to serve the country which they call home.
  In a time of hard-edged partisan politics, have we grown so coarse 
and calloused that we would send young people back to the countries 
that are foreign to them and their upbringing? We should debate how to 
better secure our borders. But in the meantime, in this season of hope, 
and love, and joy, let us turn to our better nature and let the youth 
among us live out their dreams. We will be all the better for it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 45 seconds to a 
Judiciary Committee member, Dr. Judy Chu of California.
  Ms. CHU. When I first got elected to Congress, I brought on a bright 
young man as an intern in my office. He was the student body president 
of Rio Hondo Community College. Ernesto was so sharp, so hardworking, 
so positive, with a deep desire to make America better and to use his 
education to make that happen.
  When he told me he was accepted to UCLA, I was so excited. But then 
he gave me the bad news. He learned he was undocumented. This after 
growing up most of his life right here in Los Angeles. He wasn't 
eligible for student loans. And despite all his efforts, he couldn't 
afford UCLA.
  Without the DREAM Act, Ernesto can't afford the tuition, and might 
lose his status as a student if he can't find

[[Page H8231]]

help. Ernesto is one reason out of hundreds of thousands across the 
country as to why we can't wait another day. Let's make the DREAM Act a 
reality.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the affirmative 
action amnesty act, otherwise known as the DREAM Act, which we are now 
debating.
  Mr. Speaker, if this act passes, if an illegal immigrant happens to 
be of a racial or ethnic minority, which the vast majority of illegal 
immigrants are, that individual, as soon as legal status is granted, 
will be entitled to all the education, employment, job training, 
government contracts, and other minority preferences that are written 
into our Federal and State laws. As a result, the DREAM Act would not 
only put illegal immigrants on par with American citizens, but would in 
many cases put them ahead of most American citizens and legal 
immigrants.

                              {time}  1930

  So those voting for this so-called DREAM Act are voting to relegate 
the position of nonminority American citizens to behind those who are 
now in this country illegally.
  This doesn't just give young illegal immigrants in-State tuition; it 
provides them preference in admission. This is a betrayal of our law-
abiding citizens and their families in order to help people who have 
come here illegally.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this affirmative action amnesty. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose this horrible example of misplaced 
loyalties and concerns that will help illegals at the expense of our 
citizens and legal immigrants.
  It is not being coldhearted to acknowledge that every dollar spent on 
illegal immigrants is $1 less that's spent on our own children, our own 
senior citizens, and for all those in our society who have played by 
the rules, who have paid their taxes and expect their government to 
watch out for their needs before it bestows privileges and scarce 
resources on illegals who have not played by the rules.
  This legislation not only increases the burden on our hard-pressed 
government programs and services, but will give foreigners who are here 
illegally preference over nonminority citizens, U.S. citizens. It 
doesn't get much worse than that.
  We oppose policies like the DREAM Act, and we must oppose those 
policies because they will serve as a magnet to those who would flock 
here illegally. I urge my colleagues to reject this attempt to rob our 
children of their dream and to vote ``no'' on this divisive and 
irresponsible legislation which will do nothing more than bring 
millions of more people across our borders illegally, only now they 
will bring their kids, all of them.
  Wake up, America. This is no dream. It is an affirmative action 
amnesty nightmare.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I would remind my dear friend from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) there 
is no preference in this bill. They are treated equally. There is not 
one preference that you can dream of--
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the chairman yield for a question?
  Mr. CONYERS. Unfortunately, I am not able to.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is there anything in the bill then that----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan controls the 
time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  To my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, let me just say, 
have a little compassion. These children came here. They didn't decide 
to come here. They know no other country. Some of them can't even speak 
the language of the country in which they were born, and they deserve 
to have a right as free Americans.
  I am a grandson of four immigrants from Eastern Europe, and my 
grandparents would be proud to see their grandson as a Member of the 
U.S. Congress. How many of these other children can flourish and be 
Members of Congress or do other things?
  We do need comprehensive immigration reform in this country. This is 
not it, so we shouldn't attack it because it's it. We ought to have a 
little compassion. The sky is not falling if this becomes law. It will 
be good for all of us.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who just spoke has a good point. We need 
to have compassion, but our compassion should be reserved for American 
workers, and we should put the interests of American workers ahead of 
the interests of illegal immigrants.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I agree, we have a genuine problem with kids today who were brought 
here by their parents as young children illegally. In fact, in my area, 
some of these kids were 3 and 4 years old and they are far more 
Americans and Georgians culturally than they are whatever native 
country their parents came from. So there is problem here. But I have 
got to say, this is not the solution. This is politics. In fact, under 
the name of this phony, compassionate bill, what we are doing is a 
disservice to these children.
  This is a lame duck session. The Democrats have been in charge of the 
House and the Senate and the White House now for nearly 2 years. Their 
brand of politics was squarely denounced and rejected 5 weeks ago, and 
this is one of those things. This is a Harry Reid deal. He promised to 
do it, so now he's doing it.
  If you really were concerned and there was real compassion, you know 
you would not be doing it this hour sandwiched in between a major 
spending bill--when there was no budget, by the way--and a major tax 
extension in which the Democrats, themselves, have a lot of split 
decisions about.
  But let's say look at this from a practical standpoint. How do you 
prove who was here when they were 16 up to 30? How do you prove that? 
Well, the bill actually says you only have to prove it to the 
satisfaction of the Secretary of Homeland Security. Well, that's a 
reassuring thought. The Secretary, appointed by President Obama would 
certainly never make a political decision. No, justice is blind. Just 
go down the street to the DOJ and see their cases.
  Let's be serious about this. You are talking about children, and yet 
the Secretary of Homeland Security is going to decide if you were here 
before you were 16, and then what's going to happen to parents of other 
kids? Why would they not start bringing their children in and saying, 
Oh, yeah, we have been here.
  Who keeps up with the records of illegal aliens? No one does by 
design. We all know that.
  This is a serious problem. I started out my statement saying I agree 
there is a problem. This is politics, though. This is not a solution.
  Two million people will probably become citizens under this. I don't 
think this is the right way to handle it.
  I would like to work with you guys on this. I would like to work with 
the Republican Members. We all want to because we know there is a 
situation out there. But this is politics in the 11th hour in a lame 
duck Congress, and it should be rejected by that alone.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished 
gentlelady from California, Lucille Roybal-Allard.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, DREAM Act youth are not criminals and 
bear no responsibility for the actions of adults who brought them here 
illegally as children. Raised in the United States, they have the same 
American values and love of our country as children born here. Sadly, 
because of the actions of others, they live in fear of deportation from 
the only home they know.
  The DREAM Act, which is not amnesty, will help correct this 
unfairness. With stringent criteria to qualify for legal status and a 
10-year requirement toward earned citizenship, the bill would remove 
impediments so our country can benefit from their talents and enhanced 
contributions to our country. In fact, a recent UCLA study found DREAM-
eligible students have

[[Page H8232]]

the potential to earn $1.4 trillion in additional income that could 
help fuel our country's economic growth over the next four decades.
  Mr. Speaker, we are a country that values children, not one that 
punishes them for the wrongdoing of their elders. Yet that is exactly 
what is happening to these children today.
  I urge my colleagues to support the DREAM Act.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on 
each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas controls 10 
minutes, and the gentleman from Michigan controls 15 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, Sam 
Farr.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise before you as a former 
Peace Corps volunteer, both the Speaker and myself, who know something 
about living in another country.
  Look, we are in the Chamber of the House of Representatives. We have 
been here every day. We have these debates. Surrounding us every day, 
we look at these lawgivers, 23 people, all men. Only two have ever been 
American citizens. All the rest, we worship them, because they had 
great minds. Most of them lived before the United States was even 
created.
  Those minds are in the children in America, and you are calling them 
illegal? Is that what you call bright children of your own? You want to 
raise people in that kind of climate? These kids have done nothing 
wrong. All they want is to fill that dream, that dream, with all kinds 
of restrictions that are in this bill. This ain't easy.
  My God, give those children, your children, our children, that dream.
  I rise today in strong support of the DREAM Act.
  Bottom line: The DREAM Act is good for America.
  It is good for the economy and it is good for the future 
competitiveness of our country.
  According to Secretary Gates, ``The expansion of the pool of eligible 
youth that would result from the DREAM Act provides an important 
opportunity to selectively manage against the highest qualification 
standards.''
  General Colin Powell says the DREAM Act is important because it 
invests in education and expands educational opportunities for minority 
students.
  I believe that a well-educated population raises the standard of 
living for all Americans.
  Immigrant children brought here illegally through no fault of their 
own deserve the opportunity to chase the American Dream.
  America is still the land of opportunity, and education is the portal 
for achieving opportunity.
  It is vitally important that all students, including undocumented 
students with good character who are long-term U.S. residents, have the 
same chance to pursue higher educational opportunities, be eligible for 
in-state tuition assistance, and earn legal status.
  This is a good bill. I am a co-sponsor of this bill and I urge that 
my colleagues support its passage in the 111th Congress.

                              {time}  1940

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
DREAM Act and the thousands of Florida students who will benefit when 
we pass the DREAM Act--not just the students, but the families and 
businesses all across the State of Florida and our great country.
  Our country is built upon a foundation of equality, liberty, and 
opportunity. These values apply to all, except for a small group of 
young people who, through no fault of their own, have been stuck in 
limbo and face obstacles to education and productivity.
  The DREAM Act will breathe new life into their hopes and dreams and 
the economies of our local communities. It will breathe hope and life 
into the lives of these young students, these young people who only 
know America as their home. They want to attain a higher education and 
they want to serve in the Armed Forces.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to Carolyn Maloney of New York for 
a unanimous consent request.
  (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY. I rise in strong support of the DREAM Act and urge all 
of my colleagues to vote for this important bill.
  I rise today in support of the American DREAM Act, bipartisan 
legislation that would provide a path to legal status for undocumented 
youth who entered the U.S. as children, graduated from U.S. high 
schools, and attend college or enter the military.
  I would like to thank Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer for bringing 
this important legislation up for a vote on the House floor today. I 
also would like to thank Rep. Luis Gutierrez, who sponsored this bill 
in the House and has worked so hard for its passage.
  Our Nation's history is rooted in the strength of immigrants. As New 
Yorkers, my constituents have a special understanding of how America's 
melting pot can create a rich tapestry of ethnic, cultural and 
religious traditions that infuse vitality into the economic and social 
aspects of our communities.
  I strongly believe that by protecting the rights of workers, securing 
the border, and modernizing our pathway to legal immigration, the hope 
that we can fix our broken system will become a reality.
  Under the DREAM Act, qualified students would be eligible for 
conditional immigration status upon high school graduation that would 
then lead, after a period of ten years and a rigorous process, to 
permanent legal residency if they go to college or serve in the 
military.
  We cannot deny these students the opportunity to pursue education--
especially when the alternative is often working illegally. Despite 
what some opponents of this legislation claim, the DREAM Act would not 
grant special benefits to qualified students. In fact, students may 
only access benefits they work for, or pay for.
  This bill would allow a limited number of hard working students, who 
were brought to this country as children, to be rewarded for their 
success, and in the process, produce thousands of college graduates 
contributing to economic productivity and eligible youth ready to serve 
this nation through military service.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation and urge 
my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York, Jose Serrano.
  (Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, we call it a dream, but it's a reality. 
It's young people who are here, who want to continue to be part of the 
American Dream. It's people, as Mr. Engel said, who know no other 
country. This is the country they know. This is the country they love. 
This is the country they're in. This is the country they want to help 
grow.
  We talk so much about the future of our country. The future of our 
country is in our youth, our youth who want this dream to become a 
reality.
  Vote for the DREAM Act. It is the proper American behavior at this 
time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Baca).
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support for H.R. 5281, the 
American DREAM Act, a bipartisan bill.
  America is the land of opportunity, and these students want to abide 
by the law, and that's why this bill is before us.
  It is wrong to unfairly punish young people who come to America 
through no fault of their own, wanting an education, an opportunity 
like their fellow students.
  If we pass this bill, we have an opportunity to strengthen our Nation 
and respect our strong, proud immigration history, like Ronald Reagan 
and others who did this in the past.
  Equal opportunity is justice in opportunities. It's the same values 
that civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King and President Johnson 
fought for.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from the Ways and Means Committee, the Honorable Charles 
Rangel.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Thank God that the Native Americans didn't have these 
immigration laws when they were discovered, you know, by other people.
  But having said that and forgetting the idea of compassion, I'm 
reminded that in 1950, when the outfit was surrounded by Chinese and 
Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Vines called up and he

[[Page H8233]]

says, We need replacement or we've got to get out of here. And they 
told him that we didn't have any colored replacements. And even though 
President Truman, in 1948, had outlawed discrimination, still it was 
that way.
  Lieutenant Colonel Vines says, I don't care what color they are.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. RANGEL. I don't care what color they are. You send someone up 
here to defend this country or we're pulling out of here.
  And that's where we find ourselves today. At a time when we're 
looking for scientists and researchers and teachers and people to allow 
this country to maintain its greatness, we find people that were raised 
in the United States, salute the flag, the Pledge of Allegiance, the 
Star-Spangled Banner, the Boy Scouts; and these, for all practical 
purposes, we have invested in them. Now they want to pay back by 
becoming professionals. This is time for us not to retreat but move 
forward and support the DREAM Act.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, as we 
stand here this evening and debate this terribly misnamed bill, the 
American people face not a dream but a host of unmistakable realities: 
double-digit unemployment; a social service delivery system--most 
particularly, Social Security--that is terribly broken; their children 
and their grandchildren who simply cannot afford to go to school; and a 
national debt of over $14 trillion and growing by the hour, which 
really jeopardizes our collective future; and a Nation, Mr. Speaker and 
Members of the House, where too often the rule of law yields to self-
term expediency.
  I respectfully have to comment and respond to a number of the 
comments that were made on the other side of the aisle, not the least 
of which is the attempt to portray these individuals as somehow 
innocents and those who would be free of any lawbreaking. The fact is 
the law, the bill doesn't deal with that. It only deals with it 
indirectly.
  Secondly, we have the clear reality that people can be 15, 15\1/2\ 
years old and break the law, come over here and then bootstrap their 
families into citizenship, which deals with all the realities that 
couple and aggravate on top of that.
  The reality is this is a very bad piece of public policy. It's, I 
think, well-intended. I respect the sponsors, as I said in my comments 
on the rule. But at the end of the day, this is a bill that America 
cannot afford. And I strongly urge my colleagues, both Republican and 
Democrat, to vote ``no'' and to send a message to the American people 
that we still pay obeisance to and uphold the rule of law. And I urge a 
strong ``no'' vote.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to Chairwoman Nydia Velazquez for a 
unanimous consent request.
  (Ms. Velazquez asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the DREAM Act 
because of young people like Carol from New York City, so that she and 
others can fully contribute to America, the country they call home.
  Today, more than one million young people residing in our nation live 
in fear of deportation. These individuals did not choose to come here 
illegally. Rather, their parents brought them as minors.
  Now, like generations of immigrants before them, they wish to help 
build a better America. They are not seeking a handout or giveaway. All 
that they ask is a chance to earn their citizenship. The question 
before us is simple--will we let them do their part or keep hiding them 
in the shadows?
  Passing this bill is not just the moral choice--it will also bring 
our nation enormous benefits. Today's broken immigration system drains 
talent from our workforce, keeping bright minds from achieving their 
full potential. Bringing these young people into the mainstream of 
American life will enhance our competitiveness in the global economy, 
in the long term.
  In the short term, as our Nation recovers from this downturn, 
entrepreneurship will be vital. Immigrants have a strong record of 
building new businesses, representing almost 17 percent of new 
ventures. By creating additional opportunity, the DREAM Act would 
further this tradition, spurring business growth among a new generation 
of immigrants.
  These students are the kind of leaders our country needs to thrive. 
Allowing them to pursue the American dream will mean a stronger economy 
and more prosperous future for all of us.
  Equally important are the contributions these future Americans will 
make serving society. In New York City, there is a young woman named 
Carol, whose lifelong goal has been teaching. Carol was the first 
college graduate in her family, paying her own way by working two jobs. 
Upon graduation, she was accepted into a New York teaching program that 
certifies candidates, while letting them obtain a Master's Degree. 
Because Carol's parents brought her here at age six, she is prevented 
from joining the program--or becoming a teacher.
  Carol's story is too common. For the thousands like her--who are 
yearning to serve this nation and become American--we must pass this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, childhood immigrants are American in nearly every way. 
They grew up our neighbors, attending U.S. public schools. We've 
already invested in the education and upbringing of these kids. With 
this bill, we will see a return on that investment, as the best and 
brightest earn their place in the American dream.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind the managers that if 
Members engage in debate after being yielded to solely for making a 
unanimous consent request, time consumed will be charged.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland, Donna Edwards.
  Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support 
of the DREAM Act, H.R. 1751, and on behalf of many young people in my 
district like 17-year-old Yves Gomes, an advanced placement student, an 
honor student, a graduate of Paint Branch High School. Yves came to 
this country from India when he was just 14 months old, a toddler. He 
loves this country. He's all-American. He plays basketball. He listens 
to music. He wants to be a doctor to help poor people in this country. 
Let's give Yves a chance to study, to work, to contribute to this, his 
country.
  In a letter to President Obama, Yves wrote, ``The U.S. is different 
from any other country in the world because the government is willing 
to listen to its people when something is wrong.''
  Let's pass the DREAM Act.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.

                              {time}  1950

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. This 
bill is amnesty. We should not be rewarding illegal behavior. We should 
be prioritizing Americans. And we should be prioritizing the millions 
of people who are not willing to break the law. They are trying to do 
it legally, lawfully, sometimes waiting 20 years to go through the 
process. We need to fix legal immigration, not reward illegal behavior.
  Further, while I have the greatest respect for the leadership within 
the committee, I need to say that in the 23 months that I served on the 
Subcommittee on Immigration, it is an embarrassment that we met 12 
times and never discussed this. Never, never did we have a substantive 
hearing or discussion on this bill.
  Yet under martial rule we bring it here to the floor with a very 
short time span, in the middle of the night here and try to slam this 
through. That is fundamentally wrong to the process; and when the 
process is wrong, you get a bad result. I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no.''
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 45 seconds to the 
civil rights hero of the Congress, John Lewis.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the DREAM Act, this is a bill that 
we should have passed a long time ago. The American dream--isn't that 
why we are all here, why we work, toil, and sacrifice for these United 
States of America? These young people, uprooted from their homes and 
brought to this country as children, some of them so young this is the 
only home they have ever known. They have obeyed our laws, became 
excellent students, sacrificed blood and tears for our country, just as 
any good American would do.

[[Page H8234]]

  Mr. Speaker, the time is always right to do what is right. I urge my 
colleagues to pass this bill and pass it now.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve the 
balance of my time until the time on both sides is roughly equal.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to the 
one and only majority leader of the House, Steny Hoyer of Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me 1 minute. I am about 
to lose my magic 1 minute, and I lament that fact, but it is a fact. 
But I have not lost it yet.
  I am going to use that minute to speak for children who didn't break 
the law, who had no concept of violating laws. Their parents brought 
them here like millions of other children who now live in America, and 
parents who live in America. They were Irish, they were Polish, they 
were German, they were Asian, they were South Americans, they were 
Africans. Their parents brought them to this country, and they grew up 
in this country and they thought to themselves, I am proud to be an 
American. And I am sure they sing with Lee Greenwood, I am proud to 
stand up next to you. And they stand next to us almost every day. We 
may not know who they are, but they go to school, they serve in our 
Armed Forces. They participate, and they pay taxes. Some of them are 
far too young to do that. Some of them know no country except the 
United States of America. And they feel blessed.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand that immigration is an issue that divides 
many of us in this House. It is an issue that arouses passion. But the 
test of governing responsibly is whether even in the face of those 
divisions we can come together to make progress on the basis of a 
principle that ought to be universal.
  I said to my caucus tonight that I had been chairman of the 
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe for 10 years and 
served on that commission for almost 20. That commission, as some of 
you know, is charged with overseeing the implementation of the Helsinki 
Final Act. The Helsinki Final Act, of course, was signed by President 
Ford in the summer of 1975. What that act tried to accomplish was a 
universal understanding of human rights and how nations treated their 
own citizens, and how we would look to those nations and not say it is 
simply their business, because if they abused their citizens, it was 
felt after World War II, that they might soon abuse other citizens not 
within their borders.
  And so we said we are our brother's keeper. We do need to make sure 
that people throughout this world are treated equally. And I have 
traveled to many countries behind the Iron Curtain over and over and 
over with my good friend Frank Wolf and others. Mr. Smith from New 
Jersey, particularly. We went to those countries and said, Treat people 
fairly.
  As I was thinking about this impending debate, I thought to myself, 
what if some other country were taking children who had grown up, gone 
to school, were in the military, were going to college, and we were 
kicking them out of the country because their parents had come from 
another land. Yes, those parents broke the law, and this is not about 
excusing breaking the law. These children are not culpable. These young 
people came here because as all of us went anywhere. I am in Maryland. 
Why am I a Maryland citizen? I am a Maryland citizen because my 
stepfather was in the United States Air Force and the United States Air 
Force transferred him to Andrews Air Force base, and so we moved to 
Maryland, not because I chose to move to Maryland but because my 
stepfather and mother moved to Maryland, and they brought me with them. 
That is who we are talking about. That is who we are talking about.
  One of those principles is I believe that individuals who came to 
this country as undocumented minors and have lived their lives in 
America should not suffer because of the actions over which they had no 
control that brought them to the United States. We all universally 
adopt that principle. No one holds children culpable for the wrongdoing 
of their parents unless somehow those children are involved themselves 
in the perpetration of wrongdoing. So this principle is well known to 
all of us and ought to be followed. That is the idea behind this 
legislation.
  We talk about the American Dream. We have a statue in the harbor in 
New York. She has a light that she lifts to all the world. And we say:
  Give me your tired, your poor,
  Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.
  The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
  Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me.
  And America says to the world: I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
  We are the keepers of the golden door.
  When the ambassador from Ireland, and we have many Irish among us, 
came and spoke, one of the things he said is: Deal with this issue. 
Deal with it because there are Irish among us who perhaps came because 
their parents saw opportunity at a time of great strife in their land 
and came to America.
  My father came at the age of 32 in 1934 from Denmark to seek 
opportunity in this country. There are so many of us among this group 
of 435 who could give similar stories. Our parents came here to seek 
opportunity. Some came, and our grandparents came, when there was no 
significant control on their coming here. As immigration has grown, we 
have had to rightfully make restrictions. And I am one who believes 
that we need to know who comes into the United States of America.
  Our choice tonight is between allowing those young people to live 
their lives in the shadows of America or ensuring that those who want 
to serve our country and contribute to our economy can stay in the 
country that is their home. They perceive it to be their home.

                              {time}  2000

  They were children in school, in our neighborhoods, in our boys' and 
girls' clubs, who played on our athletic fields, and who think of 
themselves as Americans.
  For those young people who have been in our country for 5 continuous 
years before the enactment of this bill, this is not an inducement to 
come here; this is not an inducement for somebody to bring their 
children here. This is to say to those children who are here: We are 
going to incorporate you if you play by the rules in an opportunity, in 
this land that we call the land of opportunity.
  The DREAM Act provides for 6 years of conditional legal status but 
only if they have completed high school or a GED during those years. 
Applicants must finish 2 years of college or serve 2 years in the 
military and must not commit any crime. We are not going to allow 
wrongdoers. These are people who are playing by the rules; and if they 
meet those requirements, they will be able to earn permanent residence 
and be allowed to apply for citizenship.
  Now, understand again that these are young people who broke no law. 
These are young people who had no intent to break the law. These are 
young people who have played by the rules, who have graduated from high 
school, who have gotten GEDs or who are about to do so in order to 
qualify. In a competitive world, America's openness to immigration is 
one, frankly, of its strengths, not of its weaknesses. The 
beneficiaries of the DREAM Act are the kind of new Americans we want--
young people who speak English, who abide by the law and value 
education, and in many cases, who are willing to risk their lives for 
America as members of the Armed Forces.
  Our military understands the value of a new pool of motivated young 
men and women committed to serving their country. Clifford Stanley, the 
Defense Undersecretary in charge of personnel, said that failing to 
pass this legislation would be, in his words, ``unconscionable.''
  Economists also understand the value of these immigrants. A UCLA 
study found that their income will reach as high as $3.6 trillion over 
the course of their lives. They're very young now, so that may be 70 or 
80 years, which is a long time; but it's an indication of their 
willingness, as it is of the millions and millions of immigrants 
throughout our history, to add to the value of America--a Nation, we 
call ourselves, of immigrants like my father. That's why the DREAM Act 
is

[[Page H8235]]

in keeping with the principles that have made America strong and so 
dynamic.
  Some of you may know Michael Gerson personally. He was George Bush's 
speechwriter. I hope you had the opportunity to read the column that 
appeared just two days ago. If you didn't, let me quote from it.
  ``It is a principle of democratic capitalism . . . that ambitious 
human beings are not just mouths but hands and brains. They are a 
resource--the main source of future wealth.''
  He urged his party, his Republican Party, to reach out in this 
instance of which we are not talking about forgiving wrongdoing to 
young people who have not done anything wrong. Let us stress that over 
and over. I urge my colleagues to take advantage of that resource, to 
do what is both in America's interest and in keeping with America's 
fairness.
  Some of you know Jeb Bush. I don't know Jeb Bush personally; but 
Governor Bush--the Governor of Florida twice--has been mentioned as a 
possible Presidential candidate.
  ``I think politicians,'' those of us who serve in public office, 
``should be supporting the DREAM Act,'' said Governor Bush. ``I think 
it's a good policy. I think the military is a most impressive and 
important institution in this country.'' Those who serve and those who 
are willing to serve should be given the opportunity--again, not 
speaking of wrongdoers.
  I hope all of my colleagues hear this and all who are listening. 
Michael Gerson is George Bush's speechwriter. He says at another point 
in this article, ``It would be difficult to define a more sympathetic 
group of potential Americans; and the choice here is not between the 
presence of these young immigrants and their absence. No one is 
proposing the mass deportation of this particular group.'' These are 
children who have done nothing wrong and who would be the last on the 
target lists of even the most enthusiastic immigration restrictionists. 
In the words of Michael Gerson, ``The actual choice is between allowing 
these young men and women to develop their talents and serve in the 
military or not.''
  Ladies and gentlemen, I urge my colleagues: Let us join that Lady in 
the harbor, who lifts her lamp beside this golden door, and understand 
why the millions and millions and millions and millions of people came 
from across this Earth to seek opportunity in this great and generous 
land. Let us reflect that tonight.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, our Nation cannot afford to turn away 
these talented youths. In order to remain competitive in the global 
economy, our country must train a new generation of highly skilled STEM 
professionals--scientists, engineers, and mathematicians--to bolster 
the scientific discovery and to spur the technological innovation that 
our Nation desperately needs.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and support the DREAM Act.
  I rise today to strongly urge my colleagues to vote for the DREAM Act 
. . . H.R. 5281.
  Our students have been waiting for nearly a decade for Congress to 
act on this important legislation, and according to estimates by the 
Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, this 
bill will reduce deficits by about $2.2 billion during the period . . . 
2011 to 2020.
  It's time for Congress to pass the DREAM Act and do what is just and 
sensible and give these deserving students a chance to make meaningful 
contributions to our Nation's workforce, economy, military and civic 
life.
  As Subcommittee chairman for Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and 
Competitiveness, I believe that our Nation must encourage all students 
to succeed in school, particularly those students who are hardworking 
and serving as role models to their peers. This legislation supports 
our nation's high school and college completion goals and helps to 
reduce dropout rates.
  In the Rio Grande Valley of South Texas and across the country, DREAM 
Act students are exceptional young men and women. Despite facing 
difficult circumstances, many of these students have excelled in 
school, and become valedictorians, AP scholars, and distinguished 
student leaders. There are at least 1,000 college students in my 
congressional district who would benefit from this legislation.
  Our nation cannot afford to turn away these talented youth. In order 
to remain competitive in the global economy, our country must train a 
new generation of highly-skilled STEM professionals--scientists, 
engineers, and mathematicians--to bolster scientific discovery and spur 
the technological innovation that our Nation desperately needs.
  These students are ready and willing to contribute to our country and 
do what is necessary to achieve their career goals and earn their 
citizenship.
  DREAM Act students exemplify the American ideals of hard work, 
perseverance, a desire to succeed and contribute to this Nation--values 
that we in Congress extol and strive to instill in all students. 
Importantly, these young men and women are an integral part of our 
families and communities. Many of these students were brought here as 
children, and know America as their only home.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and support the DREAM Act . . . 
H.R. 5281.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the 
Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Illinois, Luis Gutierrez. He 
has worked on this issue, not just on the DREAM Act but on the whole 
question of immigration, with great skill and knowledge.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I come here this evening to say to you, 
yes, let's give the DREAM kids an opportunity. They are American in 
everything but on a piece of paper. They are just like my children and 
your children. So I say, too:
  Give them a chance. Give them the opportunity--the opportunity this 
Congress will not give their mothers, who are today finishing toiling 
in Salinas, California, picking the fruit; their mothers who are in 
sweatshops in New York tonight, finishing their labor; their mothers 
who are in meatpacking plants in Iowa--sweaty, under terrible 
conditions.
  That same despair and inequity and unfairness and injustice that 
their mothers suffer, let's say that this Congress will not allow them 
to suffer. Let's say that their work, their sweat, and their toil will 
be responded to by this Congress by saying their children will not 
suffer the consequences of the inaction and unfairness of our 
immigration system.
  We know that there are millions of undocumented workers--their 
parents--who work and sweat and toil every day to make this Nation 
greater. They were wrong about the Irish. They were wrong about the 
Italians. They have been wrong about immigrants in the past, and they 
are wrong about the immigrants today and about these children of 
immigrants.
  Let this Congress stand as it has stood before for immigrants. I 
stand here today also as a Democrat, as a Democrat who understands that 
the rule of law must also be conditioned by justice and fairness and 
compassion. I stand here in the same manner as we have stood up when 
the rule of law said to a woman, You will not earn equal pay, and in 
the same manner as when someone of sexual orientation has been abused, 
and we say, That will not be tolerated.

                              {time}  2010

  When there is someone without health care, we say we will provide 
health care. We look at the rule of law, and we see homeless and we 
want to provide housing to them. And today, just as we have faced that 
unfairness and those inequities in our system, we have come here, yes, 
to support the rule of law, but to change the law when it is unfair. 
Today, change it for this generation of young men and women. We must 
stand up for them.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), a senior member of the 
Judiciary Committee and a former Attorney General of California.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I don't think I was 
wrong in 1984 when I stood on this floor in this position and led the 
Republican effort to work with my Democratic friends to pass 
immigration reform. I don't think I was wrong in 1986 when I was the 
Republican floor manager of Simpson-Mazzoli in an attempt to try and 
bring some semblance of law to the issue of immigration, both legal and 
illegal. But I must say that in 1986, when we did pass that law, we 
thought that that was going to resolve many of these issues, and it was 
going to take care of them. And even though we spent weeks on the floor 
over those 2 years--weeks on the floor, allowing 200-

[[Page H8236]]

and-some amendments to be put in the Record, over 100 amendments 
offered on the floor so that Members had the opportunity to have their 
ideas heard--I don't think we were wrong.
  I do think we are wrong now to bring this at the last hour, to deny 
anybody an opportunity for a single amendment on this important issue, 
and to bring it in a parliamentary inquiry fashion that stuffs this 
bill into a Senate bill, which does what? Disallows the minority an 
opportunity to bring a motion to recommit.
  Now, why do I say that that's important? Because we passed 
legislation in '86 that we thought was going to solve the problem. In 
some cases it solved the problem, and in some cases it exacerbated the 
problem. I was concerned at that time that we passed the SAW and RAW 
provisions--seasonal agricultural workers and replenishment 
agricultural workers--because I was afraid that that would be full of 
fraud. And guess what? It has been. Since that time we have added to 
the numbers of people who are illegally in the United States. Now, some 
people don't want to talk about that as if it has no importance.
  We have, as a principle in our law, the concept of a worldwide quota. 
What does that mean? That means everyone should have an equal 
opportunity to come to the United States, whether you're the poorest 
child in Africa, whether you're in the Philippines, whether you're in 
Asia. And when you have rampant illegal immigration, particularly from 
this hemisphere, you are in essence discriminating against those 
equally poor, some even in worse poor situations around the world for 
their chance to come here to the United States. That's why when you 
deal with an issue like this, you have to look at the whole picture, 
and we are denied the opportunity to look at the whole picture here.
  There are those that say, well, we are here to assist only those 
children who, by no fault of their own, came to the United States, 
those up to the age of 16 who came here in one fashion or another. If 
that be true, why not allow an amendment which would say that those who 
benefit from this will not have the opportunity to bring those who may 
have brought them here illegally----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Why not say they will not have 
the right to bring those who did break the law into the United States? 
But right now, under this bill, if you qualify under this bill, you 
have the right to begin chain migration. You have the right to bring 
your parents in, your adult siblings in, others in. At least give us 
the chance to have the opportunity for amendment. That's all I'm 
saying.
  We know that this isn't the way to deal with this issue. We know we 
should have a chance. We had the opportunity for months to bring 
something to this floor. So all I would say is this is an issue that 
many of us on this side of the aisle will work with you on, but this is 
just not the night and this is not the way to do it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from California, 
Grace Napolitano, for a unanimous consent request.
  (Mrs. NAPOLITANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I support the DREAM Act because of the 
young people in my district and throughout the United States so they 
can fully contribute to America, the country they call home.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the DREAM Act because of young people like 
Julieta, so that she and others like her can fully contribute to 
America, the country they call home.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York, Gregory Meeks.
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Who are we? We call ourselves American 
citizens. We're proud to be Americans. Why are we proud to be 
Americans? Well, we were raised in American schools, we loved our 
country, we studied our history, we wanted to prosper, we wanted to be 
able to do the things that cause us to be free.
  We care about children. What we're talking about here is a group of 
children who all they know is what we know. In fact, many of them had 
no idea that they were not American citizens. They grew up loving this 
country; they grew up aspiring for the same things that we have; then 
all of a sudden they find out that they can't continue with their 
education, they can't go into the military.
  If we are truly Americans, if we truly care about kids, if we truly 
stand for our core values, we will tell those children because those 
children are as much American as each and every one of us. Let's 
support the DREAM Act.
  Mr. CONYERS. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York, Yvette Clarke.
  Ms. CLARKE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
  It is my honor tonight to stand here as a second-generation American 
coming from a district where many people come as immigrants to make the 
United States their home. Some of those people, many of those people, 
are residents of our Nation and want to become citizens. Some are 
undocumented. Many of them are young people, are children who go 
through our school systems and look just like me. I am proud to stand 
here today because those young people have been law abiding and know 
this place as their home, have never known their place of origin but 
understand that the work that they do each and every day in our schools 
and in our communities accrue to a stronger Nation.
  Tonight, we have the opportunity to make their dreams a reality, 
their dreams to do more than to stand and defend our flag, to give 
their lives as many give their lives for the freedoms of America. 
Today, we make sure that that dream is fulfilled and they fulfill their 
obligation as new Americans in our Nation. The DREAM Act will be a 
reality tonight, and I am proud to cast my vote in favor of those young 
people.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, when my grandmother came over here and landed at Ellis 
Island, 2 percent were sent back. We had a merit system, and you had to 
meet those standards.
  I believe in an immigration policy that is designed to enhance the 
economic, the social, and the cultural well-being of the United States 
of America. This immigration policy is for America. We can't relieve 
all of the poverty in the world. That is completely impossible.
  Today, our immigration structure is this: between 7 and 11 percent of 
our legal immigration is based on merit, and the balance of it is out 
of our control as far as setting any standards. If we are going to be a 
great Nation we have to have a policy that is established to promote 
American exceptionalism. This bill does not. I urge a ``no'' vote.

                              {time}  2020

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Honda) for a unanimous consent request.
  (Mr. HONDA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the DREAM Act.
  Mr. CONYERS. I am pleased at this time to yield 1 minute to the 
Speaker of the House of Representatives, the gentlelady from 
California, Ms. Nancy Pelosi.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
giving us this opportunity this evening to come to the floor of the 
House on behalf of many children in America.
  It is one of those evenings when we can associate ourselves very 
directly with the aspirations of our Founding Fathers. How blessed we 
were at the beginning of our country, even before our country began, 
that these brave and courageous people stood up for independence for 
our country. And when they established our country, they designed the 
great seal of the country and it said, ``Novus Ordo Seclorum,'' a new 
order for the ages. How confident they were, how optimistic they were. 
No country in the history of the world had ever had founders founding 
on a new principle of equality of people and freedom, separating 
themselves from a great military power by winning independence

[[Page H8237]]

and saying this was about a new order for the future. And they could 
say that with confidence because they had a commitment to make the 
future better from one generation to the next.
  That became known as the American Dream, eventually, and people 
flocked to our shores to be part of the American Dream. And when they 
came, they brought their hopes, their aspirations, their determination, 
their optimism for a better future for their families and for the next 
generation. And in coming here, these newcomers--at that time, a couple 
hundred of years ago--and to this day, by coming with that optimism and 
hope and commitment to a better future for the next generation, they 
made America more American.
  And so tonight we have an opportunity to identify with the 
aspirations of our Founders. And we know that if we are going to have a 
better future for our country, it is important for us to recognize the 
children who are here. They have come from every continent in the 
world, from Europe, from Asia, from Australia, from Latin America. My 
colleague, Congresswoman Clarke, talked about children coming from the 
Caribbean. A lot of attention is paid to those coming from Latin 
America, but they have come from all over the world, and many of them 
to this day do not know what their legal status is. Some find out in a 
most unfortunate way when ICE shows up at their door to say, You 
weren't born here, because their parents may not have told them that.
  But their identity is all American. Some of them don't even speak the 
language of the country of origin of their parents. So many of them 
come here with this great patriotism. Their families come with this 
great patriotism. Many of these young people serve in the military, so 
they strengthen our national security. Secretary Gates has said, The 
DREAM Act represents an opportunity to expand the recruitment and 
readiness of our armed services. That's what the Secretary of Defense 
said. We all know that the competitiveness of America depends on 
innovation, and innovation begins in the classroom. And these young 
people have an array of skills and talent, whether they're in the 
military, whether they're in college, whether they go to graduate 
school. And we know that many of them cannot reach their professional 
aspirations because that is when they bump into the fact that they are 
not fully documented.
  If you have ever been to a DREAM Act occasion, when young people come 
together and speak about their love for America, you will hear anthems 
of patriotism that, again, would make you so very, very proud in how it 
echoes what our Founders had in mind. So we have an opportunity tonight 
to solve a problem, solve a problem for these young people, to help 
solve problems for our military and our national security, to help 
solve problems about innovation and education and making our country 
stronger economically as well as militarily.
  This bill does not cost money. In fact, it sends money back to the 
Treasury, about over $2.5 billion. But as studies show, there will be 
hundreds of billions of dollars that will be paid in taxes by these 
young people when they reach their full aspirations.
  This act is about Pedro Ramirez, the student government president at 
California State University Fresno. He was brought here when he was 3 
years old and was unaware of his lack of citizenship until he was a 
senior in high school. In the midst of the controversy of his status, 
he reminded us, the DREAM Act itself symbolizes what it is to be an 
American. It's about equality. It's about opportunity. It's about the 
future.
  Young people like Pedro and so many others like him represent the 
best reasons to pass the DREAM Act. We always think in numbers. Think 
of these individual young people and how they identify with America. 
They have no other identity in many cases. They want to participate in 
our Nation's future. They want to help build it. They want to use their 
degrees and their skills to help build something better for the next 
generation, and that's what our Founders had in mind when they said, 
Novus Ordo Seclorum, a new order. It's on the dollar bill. In case you 
have a dollar in your pocket, you can take out The Great Seal of the 
United States, ``Novus Ordo Seclorum,'' with that confidence, later to 
be called the American Dream.
  We owe it to our Founders, and we owe it to these young people, we 
owe it to the future to cast a vote for a bill that makes America more 
American. And I want to thank Mr. Conyers. I want to thank Howard 
Berman, the author of this legislation; Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren, also on 
the Judiciary Committee; certainly Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, chair 
of the Hispanic Caucus; Congressman Xavier Becerra, part of the House 
leadership; Luis Gutierrez; Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard; and 
the entire Congressional Hispanic Caucus. But it is not confined to the 
Hispanic Caucus, as Representative Clarke has said. This is about kids 
from all over the world.
  And as Steny said earlier, when the Prime Minister of Ireland came 
here and spoke, and when we attended the festivities each year 
surrounding the visit of the Taoiseach, they always talk about 
immigration. They always talk about this issue. This is one piece of 
it.
  And I know the gentleman got up and said he couldn't be for this 
because it didn't have a motion to recommit. This isn't about a motion 
to recommit. This is about a commitment to our future. This is about a 
recognition of what these young people can mean for our country. And so 
I hope that that recognition will result in a very positive vote, and I 
hope a bipartisan vote in support of making the future better for the 
next generation, which is the strength of our great country. Thank you 
all, and please vote ``aye'' on the legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan and the 
gentleman from Texas each control 3 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, 1 month ago the American people told Congress to change 
course, to put the American people first, to generate jobs, and to 
strengthen the economy. Unfortunately, it seems that some Democrats 
have learned nothing and forgotten everything about what the American 
people want.
  We are considering major legislation that the American people 
couldn't read until a few hours ago. The Democrats refused to hold any 
hearings on this bill, and no amendments have been allowed. It is the 
result of a closed and undemocratic process.
  We all know that the point of this bill is to give amnesty to almost 
everyone who is in the country illegally and who is under 30. Illegal 
immigrants get amnesty if they can show hardship if they are sent home. 
Illegal immigrants can stay if they just claim to be eligible under 
this legislation. Illegal immigrants get amnesty if they use fraudulent 
documents because the Federal Government has no way to check millions 
of claims. Illegal immigrants get amnesty even if they have committed 
crimes like DUI, document fraud, and visa fraud.

                              {time}  2030

  This is a bill that gives amnesty to more than 2 million people who 
are in the country illegally. It encourages fraud and even more illegal 
immigration.
  Today, Americans face an unemployment rate of 9.8 percent, a new 
record. That number has now topped 9.5 percent for 16 months, the 
longest period since the Great Depression. The DREAM Act means more 
competition for American workers who are in need of those jobs. It puts 
the interests of illegal immigrants ahead of the interests of American 
citizens.
  I urge my colleagues to put the American people first, and oppose 
this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to Barbara Lee of 
Oakland, California.
  Ms. LEE of California. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say the overwhelming majority of the 
Congressional Black Caucus supports the 800,000 young people who will 
be able now, if we pass this, will be able to live the American Dream. 
It's in our national interest to pass this. But more importantly, this 
is the right thing to do.
  Please vote for the DREAM Act. This is an important moment in our 
country's history. This demonstrates our

[[Page H8238]]

American values and who we are as a people.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, Howard Berman is not only the chair of the 
Foreign Affairs Committee; he is the second ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee. I yield him the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ms. Lofgren, the chairman of 
the subcommittee, for bringing this legislation to the floor. For 30 
debate-time minutes we have heard the other side's arguments, and so 
many of them have been filled with scare tactics and blatant 
inaccuracies. We have been working on this bill for nearly a decade. We 
have recently made a number of changes to make clear our intentions 
about who the bill should cover and who it shouldn't.
  Nearly every speaker on the other side has used the term ``amnesty.'' 
Think about that. Amnesty, amnesty, amnesty. If you say it enough, you 
can scare a lot of people into being against this bill. We are talking 
about a group of people who didn't do anything wrong. They didn't 
possess the intention to commit a crime or to cross the border 
illegally. They were brought here. This is a universe of people who 
deserve special consideration because the absence of wrongdoing is so 
clear. And for that you use the term amnesty? That's outrageous.
  Next, we hear scare tactics regarding chain migration. My good friend 
Dan Lungren says these people, once we give them this status, will be 
able to petition for their adult siblings. We have taken away petition 
rights for adult siblings, young siblings, grandparents, grandchildren; 
and it will be 25 years before any person whose status is adjusted 
under this legislation will be able to petition for the parent that 
brought that kid here, because we never undid my friend Lamar Smith's 
provision that required 10-year absence after the petition is filed for 
anyone who came to this country without authorization. The chain 
migration argument is another bogus argument, just like the amnesty 
argument.
  Then we hear from the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) 
about the affirmative action amnesty legislation which will give 
preference to all these people. This is a group of people who under 
this legislation will not be allowed to receive Pell Grants, will not 
be able to get into the health insurance exchanges. I know you plan to 
repeal them, but they will not be able to get into them. They will not 
qualify for food stamps. They are ineligible for the Medicare program. 
They are ineligible for the SCHIP program. And you are talking about 
tremendous preferences over U.S. citizens? Another bogus argument.
  In closing, I would just say one sentence. In the end, this bill is 
less about the kids who deserve to benefit from the legislation than 
the country that will get the benefit of having them use their skills 
and their talents on our behalf. I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong 
support for H.R. 1751, the American DREAM Act, a landmark bill that 
will provide hope and opportunity to hundreds of thousands of young 
people in our country.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know that America's immigration system is broken 
and badly in need of reform. While H.R. 1751 may not make all the 
changes necessary to repair our system, it does take an important step 
forward by fixing one of the most unfair aspects of our immigration 
laws. Under current law, undocumented immigrants who came to this 
country before the age of 16, brought by their parents and loved ones, 
are punished by being prevented from becoming citizens of the United 
States.
  I have seen the injustice of this law firsthand. Just last year, Rigo 
Padilla, one of the top students at Noble Street Charter High School, 
was detained and scheduled for deportation by immigration officials 
when authorities learned that he was undocumented. Rigo came to the 
United States at the age of six and has since excelled in the 
classroom. Rigo is precisely the type of person we want to support in 
the United States and yet our immigration laws consider him an 
``outlaw.''
  The American DREAM Act would change this unjust law by giving 
students who have good moral character and have lived in the U.S. for 
at least five years the opportunity to go on to college and/or enroll 
in America's armed services, regardless of their immigration status. I 
strongly believe that all youth residing in this country should have 
access to all military and educational opportunities available. In the 
vast majority of cases, immigrant students and soldiers will continue 
to reside in this country for most, if not all, of their adult lives, 
and it is important that we provide them with all the tools necessary 
to become full participants in and contributors to our society.
  I would like to thank my good friend Luis Gutierrez for his tireless 
efforts on behalf of all immigrants in America today. I also want to 
acknowledge the incredible hard work of countless youth activists 
across the country who campaigned for this bill. It is because of their 
work that the American DREAM Act is one step closer to becoming a 
reality. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important bill.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
5281, the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) 
Act of 2010. First and foremost, I want to thank the chief sponsors of 
this legislation, my good friends, Congressman Berman of California and 
Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida, and all the cosponsors of 
this important legislation. I also want to thank Speaker Nancy Pelosi 
for her leadership on this issue. This is an important piece of 
legislation because it will give many young people an opportunity to 
further pursue their education given their adverse circumstances.
  The DREAM Act will give the many high achieving and talented youth an 
opportunity to further their education or serve our country. This 
legislation, through a two-tier process, will allow eligible 
unauthorized aliens to apply for temporary Legal Permanent Resident 
(LPR) status and eventually full LPR status after meeting strict 
criteria.
  As unauthorized aliens, including overstayers, they will be eligible 
to apply for conditional LPR status as long as they are in good moral 
standing, qualify for years of residency and have been admitted to 
either an institution of higher education or enlisted in the U.S. Armed 
Forces.
  There are many that have said that the DREAM Act will become an open-
ended amnesty law but this is not true. Through the stringent 
requirements, the fact that those who are eligible already reside in 
the U.S. for many years, and a long-term probationary period prior to 
full LPR status will prevent others from trying to take advantage of 
our immigration laws.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the DREAM Act will 
reduce the deficit by more than $2.2 billion dollars within the next 10 
years. It will also improve our national economy by increasing our U.S. 
workforce and, importantly, it will assist our military recruiting 
efforts to ensure readiness and support for our U.S. Armed Forces.
  It is only right that we provide humanitarian relief for the many 
children who were brought to our country illegally by their parents. We 
must not punish the children for the decisions of their parents for 
they had no say in the matter.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5281.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support efforts to overhaul 
our broken immigration system. This is no easy task and it remains a 
contentious issue for many people. We should not allow the failures of 
the past to prevent us from finding a path forward.
  Comprehensive immigration reform legislation must reduce wait-times 
for people trying to follow our immigration laws. It should simplify 
and stabilize an effective guest worker program, give employers the 
resources they need to hire a legal workforce and better tools to 
uphold our laws. It must address border security. And it must bring 
into fold the 11 million people currently living in our country without 
documentation.
  Passing the DREAM Act is an important step toward achieving 
comprehensive immigration reform and I am proud to support this 
legislation. It recognizes that many children are brought to the U.S. 
and who are not citizens are nonetheless working hard on their future. 
In many respects our futures are the same. The DREAM Act is an 
important step not just for the welfare and future of these young 
people, but for the welfare and future of America.
  These are children and students who have grown up in the U.S., who 
are part of our country, who have succeeded in school and stayed out of 
trouble, who are committed to going to college or joining our armed 
forces. We should welcome them. This is what the American Dream is all 
about.
  Issues of fairness aside, there are very practical reasons to support 
this legislation:
  Our military supports the DREAM Act because it improves military 
readiness, which is why Colin Powell and Robert Gates both support the 
legislation and why it is reflected in the Defense Department's 
strategic plan;
  By integrating these young people into our economy, the CBO reports 
that the DREAM Act will reduce our deficit by $1.4 billion over the 
next 10 years;

[[Page H8239]]

  Increasing the number of people going to college or achieving careers 
in our armed forces will expand our economy, which will increase 
opportunities for everyone.
  I look forward to voting in favor of this important legislation.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, the American Dream is the dream of 
immigrants. It is the belief that our nation invests in those who 
possess the best ideas, the best work ethics, and the smartest business 
plans. It is the faith that our actions, not our ancestry, determine 
what we can achieve. The American Dream is when the daughter of 
immigrants can grow up and serve in Congress.
  Across our country, millions of children who have lived here most of 
their lives--and know no other home--are denied access to their 
American dreams. These children live under threat of deportation 
because of their parents' actions, not their own. It is wholly un-
American to punish the child for the father's sins.
  The DREAM Act updates our laws to reflect the principles of our 
nation and preserve access to the American Dream for these children. 
The bill creates a path to legalization, dependent upon good moral 
character, hard work and service. In other words, American values.
  In my Silicon Valley District, many foreign-born entrepreneurs have 
built uniquely American businesses--Google, Intel, and Yahoo, to name a 
few. These companies and many like them have grown our nation's 
economy, spread our influence, and created hundreds of thousands of 
jobs for our citizens. These are the fruits of the American Dream.
  With the passage of the DREAM Act, children across our nation will 
have the opportunity to be the next great business leader and create 
the next big idea. Our entire society will benefit from it. Please join 
me in voting yes.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
  Make no mistake, this bill is an amnesty for people who are in this 
country illegally. This will only encourage other people to send their 
children across the border illegally in the hope that Congress will 
grant another amnesty in the future.
  At a time when the unemployment rate is 9.8 percent, this Congress 
will actually force American workers to compete for jobs with at least 
two million additional people. It defies common sense to argue that 
this will not drive up the unemployment rate and drive down wages and 
working conditions for legal workers.
  The workers granted amnesty will not just be competing for jobs, but 
for admissions to good colleges, housing, health care, education, and 
other services. It defies common sense that this bill would not have a 
serious, negative impact on our economy, our workforce, our schools, 
our hospitals, and our communities.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the urgent 
immigration crisis facing our nation and to ask my colleagues to join 
me in support of H.R. 5281, the Development, Relief, and Education of 
Alien Minors Act.
  We have all heard the numbers: an estimated 12 million undocumented 
immigrants forced to live under a broken U.S. immigration system; more 
than 400,000 people each year entering this country illegally, side 
stepping those who follow the rules and try to come here the right way.
  But these numbers do not fully reflect the human suffering, economic 
disadvantage or threat to our national security that this failed system 
has created.
  Immigrants coming to this country illegally often face a terrible 
choice: endure crippling poverty and danger to themselves and their 
families in their home country, or abandon their homes to try and find 
work and build a new life here. For most Americans, their parents, 
grandparents, or ancestors brought their families to the U.S. in search 
of a better life. Those who bring their young children here today put 
themselves and their families at risk for the same reasons that 
immigrants did so generations ago. Children who are brought here 
illegally now are often forced into a life in the shadows of a country 
they will most likely know as their only home.
  The DREAM Act establishes a rigorous, decade-long process that would 
create a path to citizenship for those children by serving in the Armed 
Forces or pursuing a college education. DREAM Act participants would 
not be eligible for federal programs, such as Medicaid or Pell Grants, 
while they are in conditional status. Additionally, this bill will not 
encourage continued illegal immigration because it does not apply to 
children brought here illegally in the future--only those who have 
lived here for at least five years. It is a bipartisan, common-sense 
solution that would give children who were raised here an opportunity 
to contribute to our nation.
  While the policy arguments for this bill are strong, I want to share 
part of a letter I received from a 17 year-old constituent who 
described the personal toll of living in the shadows and what passage 
of the DREAM Act would mean to him. He was brought to this country 
illegally from Guatemala when he was 7 years old by parents who were 
seeking a better life for his disabled brother. He wrote, ``I don't 
blame my mother or father for bringing me here. I completely understand 
why they did it . . . I have always had to understand so many things at 
just a young age that I feel older than I am. What I was not capable of 
understanding was how hard it would be not having legal status in this 
country. Now I am seeing how hard it is not being able to get a job so 
that I can help my mom . . . or apply to a college. In a way it makes 
me feel so much less of a person compared to my classmates. I still 
can't see what makes my friends be able to have a job or take driver's 
ed just because they have a social security number and not me. In my 
eyes we're the same. I have the same potential that they have, but yet 
I have to stay in this shell and not be able to reach the goals that I 
have set for myself.''
  This young person has illustrated better than I ever could how 
critical an issue this is for our country. Our proud immigrant 
communities in Rhode Island have shown the great benefit they bring to 
our economy and heritage, both in the past and present. If there is one 
thing we can all support, it should be a national policy that continues 
to attract the best and the brightest who want to contribute to this 
country and our ideals. Unfortunately, the reality is that our system 
today forces a large section of our immigrant population into the 
shadows where they are trapped in a life of illegitimacy and America 
does not fully see the benefits of their talents.
  It is for all these reasons that I have long supported the DREAM Act. 
This Act is targeted at the most highly motivated young individuals, 
with no criminal background, who were brought to this country and 
raised here under no fault of their own. These children have worked 
hard in school, and they are eager to contribute more by pursuing 
higher education or military service, and this bill will help them 
achieve their dreams, while strengthening our society, our economy and 
our security. These young people deserve the opportunity to resolve 
their immigration status and we as a nation need their contribution to 
our country. I want to thank Chairman Berman for his tremendous 
leadership on this issue and urge my colleagues to pass this bill.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to convey my strong support for 
the latest version of the DREAM Act.
  This common-sense legislation will significantly reduce the burdens 
on our federal border law enforcement by allowing them to focus on more 
serious targets who are in this country illegally and may pose a 
security threat to the United States. Providing a limited incentive for 
young people (who have significant potential to contribute to our 
economy and Armed Forces) to come forward and identify themselves is a 
pragmatic solution that will have a meaningful impact on our nation's 
immigration enforcement efforts. As a 26-year veteran and former Sector 
Chief of the United States Border Patrol, I strongly believe that the 
failure to address this problem at this critical juncture will only 
undermine our security in the years ahead.
  I am particularly disappointed by those who have characterized this 
sensible legislation as ``amnesty'' and a threat to our national 
security. As the only Member of Congress who has patrolled our nation's 
southern border, I know this measure will support the men and women who 
work hard every day to enforce our nation's immigration laws. The DREAM 
Act sets forth reasonable requirements for undocumented children that 
will enable federal law enforcement to quickly identify them, and 
allocate more time and resources to the threats that genuinely pose a 
security risk to our nation.
  By focusing on those individuals who may pose a more serious risk, 
instead of young people who could make a valuable contribution to the 
economic and military security of our nation, the DREAM Act is a major 
step forward in making our nation safer. I strongly urge your support 
of this important legislation.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to show my support for a piece 
of immigration reform that is long overdue: The American DREAM Act. In 
my district, as in the rest of the country, the children of immigrants 
are being denied the benefits of education and a future they once 
believed in.
  Under our current laws, children of immigrants are able to attend 
American elementary and high schools, but hit a glass ceiling when 
faced with the prospect of higher education. This is because their 
immigration status precludes them from opportunities that make college 
education affordable, such as in-state tuition and federal loans. If an 
individual is placed into a circumstance without choice, I ask, is it 
right to force that person to spend the rest of his life paying the 
consequences?
  The American DREAM Act offers a swift and appropriate means of 
reforming this flaw

[[Page H8240]]

in our nation's immigration laws. If enacted, individuals who were 
brought to the United States before they were 16 can become permanent 
residents when they are admitted to an institution of higher education 
or serve for 2 years in the military.
  While several similar bills have been introduced in recent 
Congresses, this reform has not had the opportunity to succeed until 
now.
  This nation was built by immigrants and we should encourage those who 
want to become Americans to pursue education. It is time to take 
initiative; let us help millions of young people take a step towards 
achieving the American dream. Let us pass the American DREAM Act.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, occasionally in politics, and in life, 
unusual allies surface. Former Bush speechwriter and well-known 
conservative Michael Gerson has embraced the Dream Act--legislation 
that would provide a path to citizenship for young people who, through 
no fault of their own, were brought to this country illegally.
  In a Washington Post column titled ``How the Dream Act Transcends 
Politics'' Gerson not only endorses the legislation, he blows out of 
the water every cynical argument for denying citizenship to this group 
of young people while also making the case that the bill is good 
politics for his party.
  Gerson writes: ``It would be difficult to define a more sympathetic 
group of potential Americans. They must demonstrate that they are law-
abiding and education-oriented. Some seek to defend the country they 
hope to join. The Defense Department supports the Dream Act as a source 
of quality volunteers. Business groups welcome a supply of college-
educated workers. The Department of Homeland Security endorses the 
legislation so it can focus on other, more threatening, groups of 
illegal immigrants.''
  Applicants for normalization under the Dream Act must be high school 
graduates or have received a GED. They would be awarded conditional 
legal status for six years, during which they must serve at least two 
years in the military or complete two years of college. Failure to meet 
the requirements would cause them to lose their legal status and face 
possible deportation.
  Far from rewarding illegal behavior or creating an incentive for 
``future lawbreaking,'' Gerson rightly notes that this group of 
immigrants, ``categorized as illegal, have done nothing illegal. They 
are condemned to a shadow existence entirely by the actions of their 
parents. And the Dream Act is not an open invitation for future illegal 
immigrants to bring their minors to America. Only applicants who have 
lived in America continuously for five years before enactment of the 
law would qualify.''
  Gerson cites the Congressional Budget Office, which estimates the Act 
would reduce the deficit by $1.4 billion over the next decade due to 
increased tax revenue. He refers to a UCLA study, which finds that 
Dream Act beneficiaries would generate $1.4 trillion to $3.6 trillion 
in income during their working lives.
  Gerson asks, rhetorically, if Dream Act beneficiaries would 
ultimately be an advantage to America or a drain. His answer to his own 
question: ``It is a principle of democratic capitalism and non-
Malthusian economics that ambitious human beings are not just mouths 
but hands and brains. They are a resource--the main source of future 
wealth.''
  He writes: ``The Dream Act would be a potent incentive for 
assimilation. But for some, assimilation clearly is not the goal. They 
have no intention of sharing the honor of citizenship with anyone 
called illegal--even those who came as children, have grown up as 
neighbors and would be willing to give their lives in the nation's 
cause.''
  I applaud Mike Gerson for his honesty and political courage. Everyone 
in this Chamber is familiar with the saying that politics makes strange 
bedfellows. Well, so does the Dream Act. I am a proud cosponsor, and 
urge its passage.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5218, 
the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act of 
2010.
  Our Nation was founded on the powerful ideals of freedom and 
tolerance. These are values that still elude other nations to this day, 
which is why the American Dream endures in the minds of so many around 
the world. As an immigrant to this country myself, I know the power of 
that dream. That I could become a member of the People's House shows 
that the dream can come true.
  The DREAM Act would provide conditional nonimmigrant status to a 
specific and narrow class of young individuals who must then meet tight 
program deadlines and rigorous requirements. Every person who is 
eligible for this status has already been in the United States and has 
been for many years. This bill allows them a path forward to making a 
real life for themselves in their home country, America.
  The DREAM Act is supported by educators, religious leaders, and 
social service organizations from across the spectrum. I include for 
reprinting in the Congressional Record, a letter I have received from 
Papa Ola Lokahi, a non-profit organization that promotes the health and 
wellbeing of Native Hawaiians, in support of the bill. It is also worth 
noting that the Department of Defense's strategic plan recommends the 
enactment of the DREAM Act to help the military ``shape and maintain a 
mission-ready All Volunteer Force.''
  I want to share the story of Mohammed Abdollahi, one of the first 
undocumented students to risk the possibility of deportation to 
illustrate the real life import of the bill before us today. Mohammed 
came to America from Iran as a three-year-old when his father was 
accepted for a Ph.D. program at the University of Michigan. But due to 
an error in the processing of an immigration form--the family paid $20 
less than required--their application to stay in the U.S. was rejected. 
Mohammad, now 24 years old, is a product of the public education system 
of Michigan, graduating from both high school and community college in 
that state.
  As a young gay man, Mohammed risked the possibility of deportation to 
a country where he knows neither the language nor the culture--and 
worse, where homosexuality is punished with torture and executions. He 
so strongly believes in the DREAM Act that he risks everything, 
including his very life, to ask that we, the Congress, support this 
bill.
  There are thousands of young people, including in Hawaii, whose 
stories I have heard who came to this country as a young person and are 
now facing the nightmare of deportation.
  I urge my colleagues to have the courage to do what is right for 
Mohammed and other high-achieving and patriotic students like him and 
vote for the DREAM Act.


                                              Papa Ola Lokahi,

                               Honolulu, Hawaii, December 1, 2010.
     Hon. Mazie Hirono,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Hirono: As leaders of the diverse Asian 
     American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) community, we write to 
     urge you to vote for the DREAM Act should this important 
     legislation come to the floor of the United States House of 
     Representatives. With Asian immigrants comprising roughly 40 
     percent of all immigrants, passage of the DREAM Act, as a 
     stepping stone towards comprehensive immigration reform, is a 
     top priority for the AAPI community.
       The DREAM Act would create a path to legalization for 
     individuals without documentation who were brought to this 
     country as children, by no choice of their own, and have 
     since excelled in high school and chosen to serve in our 
     nation's armed forces or pursue higher education. The DREAM 
     Act is aptly named because it would allow these talented 
     individuals the opportunity to become citizens and fully 
     contribute to America.
       Passage of this important legislation makes sense for 
     America's economy and our national defense. According to a 
     recent study conducted by UCLA, the combined income generated 
     by individuals who would be eligible for adjustment of status 
     under the DREAM Act would amount to $3.6 trillion over the 
     next 40 years. The Department of Defense acknowledges the 
     importance of the DREAM Act and lists passage of the bill as 
     pail of the Department's strategic plan in order to maintain 
     a mission-ready volunteer military.
       More than the economic benefits of the DREAM Act, passing 
     this legislation is the right thing to do, There are an 
     estimated 65,000 students who graduate from high school every 
     year without legal immigration status--including many Asian 
     American and Pacific Islander students. In the University of 
     California system alone, approximately 40-44% of the 
     undocumented student population is AAPI. David Cho, a Korean-
     American honor student and leader of the UCLA marching band, 
     who hopes to join the U.S. Air Force upon graduation, is just 
     one of the students who would benefit from the DREAM Act. 
     Steve Li, a Chinese-American nursing student from San 
     Francisco whose parents fled China to avoid that country's 
     one-child policy, faced imminent deportation until Senator 
     Feinstein introduced a private bill delaying his removal. A 
     college honor student who dreams of giving back to the U.S. 
     by becoming a doctor, Joanna Kim, also faces deportation and 
     the DREAM Act is her best hope for gaining legal status. 
     These young people embody our American values of hard work 
     and giving back to society.
       Now is the best opportunity we have to pass the DREAM Act 
     and take one small step toward comprehensive immigration 
     reform. The DREAM Act is an excellent opportunity for 
     Congress to show voters they can, and will, work together to 
     fix our broken immigration system. These high- achieving 
     students deserve a chance to contribute fully to the U.S. and 
     pursue the American Dream. We urge you to vote for the DREAM 
     Act.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Hardy Spoehr,
                                               Executive Director.
           Me ka oia `i` o,

                                    Momi Imaikalani Fernandez,

                                     Census Information Center and
                                     Data & Information, Director.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the Development, 
Relief, and Education for Alien Minors, DREAM, Act of 2010.

[[Page H8241]]

Today we can open the door of opportunity to thousands of young people 
already living in America, who want to pursue the American dream.
  Let us be clear about what this bill actually does. It will provide 
children and young people with the ability to serve their country or 
pursue higher education. It is not amnesty and it will not promote 
illegal immigration. This is a bipartisan bill that will provide a 
narrow group of undocumented young people who were brought to this 
country as children the chance to earn conditional permanent residency.
  This bill sets up a rigorous ten-year process for achieving legal 
permanent resident status. It will not apply to any future immigrants, 
only those who are already in our country and meet several other 
conditions. A person can only qualify if he or she was brought to the 
United States by age 15, is under 29 years of age, has lived in the 
country for at least five years at the date of the bill's enactment, 
has good moral character, is without a criminal record, and has earned 
a high-school diploma, and its equivalent is eligible for conditional 
legal status. To maintain their status, these individuals have to 
complete two years of higher education or military service. After ten 
years, they can apply to become legal permanent residents. 
Beneficiaries are not eligible for any federal benefits, including food 
stamps, welfare, or health care.
  The DREAM Act will boost our economy by creating economic opportunity 
for young people. The individuals that benefit from this bill will 
start businesses, buy homes, and pay taxes. Do we really want to be the 
country that deports the next Bill Gates or shuts out the next Steve 
Jobs from our school system because of their parents' immigration 
status?
  Most importantly, this legislation recognizes that children must not 
be punished for the actions of their parents. Our immigration system 
must be fundamentally reformed, but denying an education and a place in 
our workforce to the children of undocumented parents will not help fix 
a broken system.
  Every child deserves an education and a chance to succeed, no matter 
where they come from or what situation they are born into. Our 
country's top educators, military men and women, and business leaders 
all support this bill, and we should listen to them. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting the DREAM Act.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support the DREAM Act. Simply put, the DREAM Act is an investment 
opportunity in our nation's future. Providing thousands of children the 
chance to legalize their status by either attending college or serving 
in our Armed Forces strengthens our economy by creating a new 
generation of Americans paying into Medicare and Social Security; it 
creates a new generation of Americans that are educated to compete in a 
high-tech future. And, most importantly, it empowers a new generation 
of Americans to further contribute to their communities and our 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues who are opposed to this bill, why 
they insist on punishing children because of a decision not made by 
them. Many of these kids know no other country other than America, know 
no other language other than English, and know no other dream than the 
American dream. They never controlled their immigration status. It's 
not any more their fault that this is their country than it is the 
fault of your children that they are here. For many, they have never 
considered themselves anything but American.
  For instance, one of my constituents from Corona, Queens, was legally 
brought to this country on a visitors visa by his father when he was 
just five years-old, but overstayed the length of his visa and is now 
undocumented. Ironically, his father is now a U.S. citizen, as are his 
siblings who were born in the United States. Now a young man, he was 
graduated from a prestigious local high school in June with honors. He 
was a star baseball player and outstanding role model in the community. 
Mr. Speaker, how is it in our national interest to place barriers 
between this student and a higher education? Let's not penalize him for 
an immigration status he did not choose. Let's not deprive our nation 
of the contributions he makes to our economy.
  This is no amnesty bill. This is no free ride. They will get no 
unpaid benefits. DREAM Act beneficiaries must submit to security and 
law enforcement background checks, must be of ``good moral character'' 
as defined by law, undergo a medical examination, register for the 
Selective Service, and pay a significant fee in connection with the 
DREAM Act application. DREAM Act participants are excluded from the 
Affordable Care Act health-insurance exchanges. They are prohibited 
from receiving Pell Grants, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and other 
entitlements, and must pay their taxes. Under the act, after ten years 
of conditional non-immigrant status, this selective group of dedicated 
students can then, and only then, apply for a green card.
  There is no contradiction in supporting the DREAM Act and enforcing 
immigration law. We can enforce the law, strengthen our borders, which 
we are doing, and have a humane and just immigration policy that 
doesn't needlessly deprive a generation of children of a higher 
education. These kids want to attend college. They want to serve their 
country. They want to be Americans. It is in our best interest to 
invest in them and give them that opportunity.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this investment in the 
future of our nation and to support the DREAM Act.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
``American DREAM Act.'' I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this important 
legislation which reflects fundamental American values of opportunity, 
responsibility, and community. This legislation provides an opportunity 
for certain young men and women who demonstrate the responsible 
behavior necessary to earn the chance to become a naturalized citizen.
  Specifically, the DREAM Act provides conditional permanent resident 
status to a limited number of persons each of whom must meet the 
following conditions:
  1. Was brought to the United States when they were 15 years old or 
younger;
  2. Has lived in the United States for not less than 5 years before 
the date of enactment;
  3. Has been a person of good moral character, as defined by the 
Immigration and Nationality Act;
  4. Must have graduated from high school, earned a General Education 
Development (GED) certificate, or admitted to an institution of higher 
education.
  After 6 years in conditional permanent resident status, they can 
apply to remove the condition on their permanent residence if they have 
met the following conditions:
  1. Maintained good moral character;
  2. Have not abandoned residence in the United States; and
  3. Graduated from a community college or has completed at least two 
years of postsecondary education in good standing towards a bachelor's 
degree; or
  4. Served in the U.S. armed forces for at least two years and, if 
discharged, has received an honorable discharge.
  The DREAM Act recognizes that there are a limited number of young 
people who, through no fault of their own, have been living in the 
United States illegally since childhood. For the vast majority of these 
young men and women, the United States is the only country they have 
ever known and is the one to which they have always pledged allegiance.
  By providing those who have demonstrated good moral character the 
ability to integrate fully into American society through military 
service or a college education, the DREAM Act rewards responsible and 
productive behavior while at the same time invests in the future 
prosperity of our great nation.
  I thank Chairman Miller for his leadership in shepherding this bill 
to the floor and Congressman Berman, the author of this legislation, 
for crafting this legislation and for his perseverance over the past 
decade to get it passed. Because of their efforts the action we take 
today will make our country stronger, fairer, more just. And it will 
also make our Nation more prosperous in the long term by providing 
incentives and opportunities for higher education for thousands of 
students who each year are unable to attend college because of their 
immigration status.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the DREAM Act will 
reduce the deficit by $1.4 billion over the next 10 years through 
increased tax revenue. Similarly, a study conducted by UCLA also 
estimates that DREAM Act beneficiaries have the potential to generate 
from $1.4 trillion to $3.6 trillion in income throughout their working 
lives.
  Each year, approximately 65,000 students graduate high school without 
the possibility of continuing their education due to their immigration 
status and less than 10 percent of these students will go on to pursue 
college. Not only do these talented, law-abiding young individuals lose 
out on their extraordinary potential, but as a Nation we also run the 
risk of losing out on a tremendous amount of economic growth.
  Mr. Speaker, the American Dream Act gives these students the 
opportunity to continue their academic pursuits, be officially 
recognized by the country in which they have spent most of their lives, 
and realize everything the American Dream has to offer. Young, 
undocumented immigrants who have just graduated from high school 
deserve the opportunity to follow their dreams and should not have a 
ceiling placed on their future because of decisions made by others and 
circumstances entirely beyond their control.
  During my visits to schools in my district, one of the most 
ethnically diverse in the nation, I have had the opportunity to meet 
many students who will benefit greatly from the passage of this 
legislation. These students have grown up attending schools in the 
United States and are intimately woven into our nation's fabric. It is 
time that we recognize these

[[Page H8242]]

students' achievements and allow them to step out of the shadow that 
prevents them from pursuing their dreams.
  Mr. Speaker, when I was six years old I had a dream. It was to one 
day serve in this body as a Member of Congress. I am thankful to live 
in a country where dreams can still come true for little boys and girls 
who work hard and play by the rules. The DREAM Act will allow a limited 
number of innocent and worthy young men and women to realize their 
dreams and in the process make our nation better, stronger, and safer. 
That is why this legislation is strongly supported by the military 
services, the faith community, the business community, leading higher 
education organizations, and thoughtful commentators on both sides of 
the aisle, including the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the American DREAM Act.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill.
  There is no indication that we are closer to resolving the various 
interconnected problems of immigration that is roiling our country. I 
am disappointed that Congress has failed to pass comprehensive 
immigration reform. It is doubtful that Congress will pass such a bill 
this year, which is why I am glad the House is at least moving this 
very important and compassionate legislation.
  As I have said on many occasions, I oppose illegal immigration and I 
am concerned about the influx of illegal immigrants into America. I am 
also concerned about the lack of effective border enforcement. We need 
to ensure that our first priority is securing our borders by providing 
additional tools and resources to those who patrol the border, and the 
111th Congress has provided more funding for the Customs and Border 
Patrol than any other Congress in history. I believe we need to fully 
and effectively enforce our immigration laws, and I oppose blanket 
amnesty for those who have illegally come into the United States.
  Unlike an earlier version of this legislation, the bill before us 
today does not automatically grant lawful permanent resident (LPR) 
status to anyone covered by the bill. Under the new House bill, 
conditional nonimmigrants must meet the bill's college or military 
service requirement after 5 years, at which point they must file a new 
application to extend their status for 5 additional years. Only after 
10 years as a conditional nonimmigrant may a DREAM Act beneficiary 
apply for legal permanent resident status.
  The bill also charges DREAM Act participants a significant surcharge 
of $525 upon filing an initial application for conditional nonimmigrant 
status and an additional surcharge of $2,000 when they apply to extend 
their status at year 5. Previous versions of the DREAM Act--including 
the most recent Senate bill--had no such surcharges. Additionally, the 
bill does not change the current federal restriction on in-state 
tuition for undocumented immigrants. Finally, only individuals who were 
brought to this country by their parents before they were 15 years old 
and who have been here at least five years and are age 29 or younger at 
the time of enactment are even eligible to apply for conditional 
nonimmigrant status under the legislation. Thus, this bill provides no 
amnesty and is most definitely not a ``free ride'' for illegal 
immigrants.
  H.R. 6497 would provide an opportunity for students who grew up in 
the United States a chance to contribute to our country's well-being by 
serving in the U.S. Armed Forces or pursuing a higher education. 
Passing this bill is the right thing to do--morally and economically. 
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on 
Taxation (JCT) estimates that the bill will reduce deficits by 
approximately $1.4 billion over the next ten years. But that figure 
alone underestimates the enormous benefits to taxpayers because the CBO 
and JCT do not take into account the increased income that DREAM Act 
participants will earn due to their legal status and educational 
attainment. It is estimated that the average DREAM Act participant will 
make $1 million over his or her lifetime simply by obtaining legal 
status, which will bring hundreds of thousands of additional dollars 
per individual for federal, state, and local treasuries.
  Indeed, as the Wall Street Journal editorialized last month,
  ``The Dream Act would create a pathway to citizenship for 
undocumented immigrant children who attend college or join the 
military. . . . Restrictionists dismiss the Dream Act as an amnesty 
that rewards people who entered the country illegally. But the bill 
targets individuals brought here by their parents as children. What is 
to be gained by holding otherwise law-abiding young people, who had no 
say in coming to this country, responsible for the illegal actions of 
others? The Dream Act also makes legal status contingent on school 
achievement and military service, the type of behavior that ought to be 
encouraged and rewarded ``
  I agree, which is why I will support this bill and urge my colleagues 
to do likewise.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the United States of 
America has a proud tradition of diversity. We are, after all, a nation 
of immigrants.
  Yet we are also united by the American Dream--the ideal that all 
Americans, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, have the 
opportunity to prosper and succeed.
  Note that the dream is not that everyone will be affluent, but that 
everyone will have the chance to achieve great things.
  That is exactly what the DREAM Act offers to a select group of hard 
working young people. It applies only to those who were raised in the 
United States and went on to further their education or serve in the 
military.
  It allows individuals who are truly outstanding to continue 
contributing to our nation's prosperity, without punishing them for the 
decisions of their parents or other relatives.
  Let me be perfectly clear--this is not an amnesty program. The 
individuals covered by the DREAM Act are not being offered citizenship.
  Initially they are assigned a conditional status, during which they 
are not eligible from most forms of government assistance. This 
includes Medicaid, food stamps, and federal grants.
  After ten years, this limited group would be offered a chance or earn 
permanent immigrant status.
  This is available only if the applicant can prove he or she has paid 
taxes; can read, write and speak in English; has maintained a good 
moral character; has lived continuously in the United States; and has 
either pursued higher education or military service.
  He or she must also demonstrate that they are not likely to be 
deported, as this program is not meant to be a safe harbor for 
deportees.
  Individuals who have benefited from the DREAM Act would be extremely 
constrained in their ability to sponsor family members for United 
States citizenship.
  There is also a strict time limit--an individual must apply for 
conditional status within a year of graduating high school, entering 
college, or the date of the bill's enactment.
  As you can see, the path laid out by this legislation is not an easy 
one.
  There will be many individuals who want to take advantage of this 
program who will be denied.
  There will be others who are inspired to greater heights of 
achievement, with the hope of attaining permanent immigrant status.
  Our nation will only benefit from encouraging and retaining these 
exceptional young people. To do otherwise would belie the promise of 
the American Dream.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1756, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the motion by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the motion offered by the gentleman from Michigan will 
be followed by a 5-minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules and 
pass H.R. 3353, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216, 
nays 198, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 625]

                               YEAS--216

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Cao
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Djou
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin

[[Page H8243]]


     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--198

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Culberson
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Higgins
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kissell
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Owens
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Space
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Berry
     Bilbray
     Blunt
     Buyer
     Cohen
     Delahunt
     Fallin
     Gingrey (GA)
     Granger
     Griffith
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mollohan
     Radanovich
     Schiff
     Stutzman
     Wu


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members have 2 minutes 
remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  2101

  So the motion was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 625, I am not recorded because I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________