[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 11 (Thursday, January 18, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H548-H551]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ISSUES OF THE DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Norman). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2017, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat) 
is recognized for 57 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Speaker, I stand on the floor of the U.S. House of 
Representatives as the clock keeps ticking for us to act on behalf of 
DREAMers and DACA recipients.
  Tonight, this House approved a continuing resolution funding 
government to continue to stay open for another 4 weeks that did not 
include a resolution to the dire conditions faced by DREAMers and DACA 
recipients. It did not include funding for community based health 
clinics, and it certainly did not adequately support the men and women 
in our Armed Forces.
  Yet, Mr. Speaker, as we continue to move forward, many Members of 
this House have worked diligently throughout the months to address the 
issues faced by DREAMers and DACA recipients. In fact, they have 
engaged in bipartisan legislative solutions. And we currently have 
three bipartisan bills that could have been voted on today on this very 
same floor of the House of Representatives. I guarantee you that if 
they would have been brought here to this floor and they would have 
given us the opportunity to vote on them, they would have passed.
  Because DREAMers are very popular in America. All polls show that 
over 80 percent of Americans across the Nation in different States, in 
different cities, want these young people to stay. Once you meet them, 
once you see their young faces, their energy, their desire to work and 
move forward, their patriotism for America, they win you over.
  No other immigration-related issue, I believe, has polled as high as 
the support that DREAMers are getting from across the country. Folks 
who live in red States and blue States, in districts represented by 
Democrats, districts represented by Republicans, feel overwhelmingly 
that these young people should stay here; that they should not be 
punished and sent back to a country that many of them don't really 
know, where they have no connection with family members.
  Some may not even speak the language spoken in those countries or be 
familiar with the customs in those nations. They feel they are 
Americans, and they have contributed tremendously to our Nation. So 
these bipartisan efforts and solutions that my colleagues have engaged 
in are very important.
  Let's begin by talking about the Dream Act, a clean Dream Act, which 
is a bipartisan bill led by Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard, a 
Democrat from California; and Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a 
Republican from Florida.
  This particular bill, the Dream Act, a clean Dream Act, has 200 
bipartisan cosponsors, including myself. This is not amnesty. Many have 
tried to portray the DREAMers' quest and fight as a fight for amnesty. 
This is not amnesty. This particular bill, which has over 200 
cosponsors, asks of the DREAMers that in order for them to be eligible 
for the Dream Act, that a person needed to have been 18 years of age on 
the date of entry, that they must have been physically present in the 
U.S. 4 years prior to the enactment of the legislation.
  Any applicant could not be convicted of any offense punishable for 
more than 1 year, or three or more offenses resulting in 90 days or 
more of imprisonment. In other words, they had to have a clean record.
  This was just to be considered. Once they were accepted into the 
program, they will get a conditional permanent residency status, a 
temporary green card. Then to transition to lawful permanent residence 
under the Dream Act, a DREAMer needed to do certain things. In other 
words, for them to transition from a conditional green card to a 
permanent green card, they needed to maintain a clean record for 8 
years. They needed to have completed a college degree or 2 years for a 
bachelor's degree or higher, or they must have served in the military 
for 2 years.
  It further asks that they would have to have been employed for at 
least 3 years for 75 percent of the time under the conditional 
permanent residency status.
  In addition to that, only after meeting all of the above, could they 
then transition to legal permanent status. So after that, they would 
have to wait an additional 5 years for them to be able to apply for 
naturalization, citizenship. So they would have to wait in total, from 
the time they got their temporary green card to the time they actually 
will be eligible to apply for citizenship, a total of 13 years. More 
than a decade.
  So the campaign to portray the Dream Act or a solution to the 
DREAMers and the DACA situation as amnesty is totally false. So 13 
years--13 long years--they would have to wait from the minute they got 
a temporary green card to the time they will be eligible to apply for 
naturalization, citizenship.
  So 80 percent of America supports these DREAMers. And this is the 
Dream Act, a bipartisan bill that has been around for some time, led by 
Republicans and Democrats that did not have a border security provision 
to it.
  But we heard how the other side of the aisle wanted to address some 
of the concerns at the border. A group of bipartisan Members of this 
House led by Representative Will Hurd from Texas and Pete Aguilar began 
to put together a second proposal, USA Act. And this proposal currently 
has 49 bipartisan cosponsors. It came out of efforts put together by a 
group called the Problem Solvers.
  In this particular proposal, in order for you to be eligible for the 
USA Act, a person needed to be at least 18 years of age on the date of 
entry and not have been convicted, again, of an offense punishable for 
more than 1 year, or any combination of offenses resulting in 
imprisonment for more than 1 year. Then the person could transition to 
lawful permanent residency.
  Again, they had to maintain a clean record for 8 years, and had to 
complete a college degree or complete 2 years in a bachelor's degree or 
higher postsecondary vocational programs. They must have served in the 
military for the entire length of their enlistment contract or been 
employed for at least 3 years 80 percent of the time they were under 
conditional permanent residency status. Only after meeting all of the 
above, could they then transition to legal permanent residency.

                              {time}  2115

  Then after 5 additional years, they will have been able to apply for 
naturalization.
  The USA Act has a border security component unlike the clean Dream 
Act.
  These bipartisan Members of this House tried to address some of the 
concerns of Members from across the aisle who continue to complain and 
be seriously concerned about border security. They included directing 
Homeland Security to deploy more technology along

[[Page H549]]

the border and to submit a plan to Congress regarding expansion of 
vehicle, cargo, and pedestrian inspection lanes on the top 10 high-
volume ports of entry.
  This last clause in this bill is very important because our ports of 
entry are very antiquated and dilapidated. This is precisely where most 
of the illegal drugs, illegal guns, and human trafficking enters our 
Nation. This particular bill calls for revamping and modernizing these 
ports of entry. The USA Act also would add an additional 55 immigration 
judges per year over the next 3 fiscal years.
  Finally, this bipartisan bill develops a strategy to address the 
factors driving migration from Northern Triangle countries in Central 
America.
  So you have the Dream Act, the clean Dream Act, which many of us 
fought for. You have the USA Act, another bipartisan bill that many in 
this House fought to put together. But it does not end there.
  In addition to these two avenues that could have been taken tonight 
here in this House to address the plight of 800,000 DREAMers, the 
Senate acted and sent us over an immigration framework of ideas led by 
Senators Graham and Durbin, in addition to Senators Michael Bennet, 
Jeff Flake, and Cory Gardner, and Senator Bob Menendez from New Jersey.
  Under this framework, the eligibility criteria bars DREAMers who have 
been convicted of crimes, and they must satisfy any Federal tax 
liability that they may have accrued while receiving work authorization 
under DACA.
  A pathway to citizenship would be 12 years, unlike the other two 
proposals that call for 8 years, this is at 12 years, and 2 of which 
they could get credit for for their time under DACA.
  This proposal, this framework, coming from the Senate also added 
additional border security elements which included $1.459 billion for 
wall planning, design, and construction, as well as an additional $1.1 
billion for tactical infrastructure, software border surveillance 
technology, and other equipment.
  All three of these bills were crafted under a bipartisan effort by 
Members from both sides of the aisle. I think that it is tragic that we 
lost another great opportunity tonight to bring any one of those three 
bills to this floor to be voted upon by the Members of this House, 
particularly since the public sentiment--over 80 percent of America 
feels that these young people should stay in our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the great State of Texas, 
Congressman Al Green, who is my good friend and colleague.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I clearly, truly, and sincerely 
thank the gentleman from New York for yielding to me. I would like to 
acknowledge that his message was most edifying. It was made 
perspicuously clear, and anyone having the opportunity to hear his 
message clearly understands that there is a pathway to success for the 
DREAMers. I am grateful that he has given his message, and I am honored 
that he has yielded to me.
  Mr. Speaker, Dr. King--and I mention him tonight because we just 
celebrated his life and legacy, and I am still celebrating--but Dr. 
King reminded us that the time is always ripe--r-i-p-e--always ripe to 
do right. The time is always beneficial, the time is always right to do 
that which is right. There may appear to be circumstances before you 
that would cause you to conclude that there are great obstacles in your 
way, and because of these great obstacles, you probably should wait 
just a little bit longer. But there are some questions that cannot 
wait, and allowing time to pass will only allow greater harm to 
manifest itself. The time is always ripe, and the time is always right 
to do that which is right.
  In the past, the not too distant past, I was accorded the preeminent 
privilege of bringing a privileged resolution before the Congress, and 
that resolution was one for impeachment. That resolution received 58 
votes to further the opportunity for impeachment to be voted upon. 
There were a good many people who were of the opinion that this was 57 
more votes than expected. I had no idea as to the number of votes that 
would be cast for moving the resolution forward such that there might 
be an up-or-down vote on impeachment. I had no idea. Fifty-eight votes 
was acceptable to me. But I also want the Record to show, Mr. Speaker, 
that if there had been but one vote, that would have been acceptable to 
me because the time is always ripe to do that which is right, and it 
was the right thing to do to bring the Articles of Impeachment.
  Mr. Speaker, I am honored to say that I believe the time is ripe for 
additional Articles of Impeachment, and, as a result thereof, tomorrow, 
additional Articles of Impeachment will be brought because the time is 
ripe and because allowing additional time to pass will only allow 
additional harm to manifest itself without a proper challenge having 
been made to things that are occurring from the Presidency that, Mr. 
Speaker, cannot be tolerated.
  Mr. Speaker, I am honored to say that I have no idea as to what the 
vote will be when we vote tomorrow or within the next 2 legislative 
days, as required by the rules. My suspicion is that the vote will take 
place tomorrow. I don't set the time for the vote. I determine when the 
resolution will be presented, and the Speaker of the House determines 
when the actual vote will take place. That is his to decide. I respect 
any decision that he makes.
  But as to my colleagues, I am not lobbying anyone to vote for this 
resolution. Each person must address what his or her conscience 
dictates. I have no idea as t what the vote will be, and I say this 
candidly because there are a good many people who will continually 
query: How will people vote? What will the outcome be? I have no idea, 
Mr. Speaker.

  But I say this: whatever the outcome, I will know that I have done 
the right thing. I will know that I will be on the right side of 
history, and I will know that there are unborn generations who will 
look back through the vista of time, and they will make decisions about 
the actions we take at this time. I will let them judge.
  It is unfortunate, but the people of the time that we live in can 
sometimes not be in the best position to judge the things that we do 
and the actions that we take. So I will know, Mr. Speaker, that we have 
done the right thing, and I will know that the judges who look through 
the vista of time will set the record straight for those who may have 
some confusion about what is happening at this time.
  I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that whatever the vote is, it will be a 
vote that will be recorded on our Record. It will be the second vote, 
and I want the Record to show that I repeatedly stood on the right side 
of history. I will repeatedly do this. For those who may be concerned, 
this may not be the last vote. So there may be more than two votes that 
we will take that will show where we stand on this great question of 
our time.
  What is the great question of our time? The great question of our 
time, as it relates to those of us in this country and around the 
world, is this: Are we going to allow the United States of America, the 
country that I love--no one sings ``The Star-Spangled Banner'' louder 
than I do, maybe not in a perfect key. No one recites the pledge with 
greater enthusiasm than I do. No one believes in the words told in the 
Pledge of Allegiance, liberty and justice, more than I do. No one 
believes in the words in the Declaration of Independence, ``All persons 
being created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable 
rights''--no one believes these things more than I. I love my country.
  So the question is, this country, the leader of the free world--
people around the world depend on us for leadership and guidance on the 
great issues impacting the world; whether they be political or moral, 
people in this world depend on the United States. People want to know: 
Where is the United States of America when it comes to a crisis? 
Regardless of the magnitude of the crisis, where are the Americans, the 
leaders of the free world?
  So, Mr. Speaker, the question is: Will we allow our preeminence in 
the world to be diminished by a perception that we condone and accept, 
in fact, will tolerate, bigotry? Will we tolerate bigotry? Will we 
allow the bigotry emanating in this country from the highest office to 
become the image of the United States of America? Will we allow people 
around the world to think that we condone this? I think not,

[[Page H550]]

which is why I will bring the Articles of Impeachment tomorrow.
  It is my opinion that I--personal pronoun--will not and should not 
tolerate bigotry. I lived too long, Mr. Speaker, and I fought too hard. 
I have suffered too many indignations associated with segregation. I 
had the Klan burn a cross in my yard. I know what bigotry looks like, I 
know what it smells like, I know what it sounds like, and I know what 
it feels like.
  So I have been involved and engaged in this struggle too long to 
tolerate it. I refuse to tolerate bigotry. The truth is, that which you 
will tolerate, you are not likely to change. If you will tolerate it, 
you are not likely to change it.
  So my vote tomorrow will be one indicative of a person who will not 
tolerate bigotry. My vote tomorrow will be one that I trust young 
children in years to come will be proud to say: One American stood 
against bigotry.
  We in this House have had years, in fact, centuries, to eradicate and 
eliminate the hatred associated with bigotry and invidious 
discrimination. We went through slavery.

                              {time}  2130

  We fought back. We went through segregation. We changed the laws. But 
we cannot allow ourselves to be put in a position such that it will be 
perceived that we are amenable to allowing the clock, the hands of 
time, to be rolled back to a time that none of us would like to return 
to. Surely, I would not, given what I know about how bigotry impacts 
the lives and the psyches of human beings.
  We are confronting the great question of: What will the United States 
look like to the rest of the world? How will we be perceived?
  But more important than this, Mr. Speaker, the question is really: 
Will we stand by silently when we can plainly and clearly see that 
wrong is being perpetrated and that people are being harmed?
  Bigotry may not impact me the same way it impacts people who are 
working every day and who don't have the benefit of Congress to come to 
and to work in the facilities that I work in.
  There are people who are hardworking Americans who are impacted by 
bigotry in ways that are harmful and that I and many others will not 
experience. There are people of color who will go in to apply for a 
loan and have their loans denied because of how they look. We have 
empirical evidence to support it. It happens. It still happens to 
people of color.
  There are people who will be impacted by bigotry simply because of 
who they happen to associate with in their intimate personal lives. 
There is still bigotry associated with the LGBTQ community. You can be 
fired because of who they happen to be, the person that God created. 
They can be fired for being that person.
  There are people who suffer from bigotry because of their religious 
beliefs. If you are Jewish, you may find yourself at some point 
suffering from bigotry perpetrated because of your belief in your God.
  If you are Muslim, you may find yourself suffering from the horrors 
associated with bigotry and being banned from a country because of your 
religious beliefs and because you are of the Islamic faith.
  Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on. These are everyday, hardworking 
people who suffer. Those of us who are here in Congress may not suffer 
all of these indignations, but there are times when some of us, too, 
will befall to the ugliness of bigotry.
  Mr. Speaker, the question is: Will we allow people who we know we can 
help be assisted by virtue of the position that we take?
  I say to you, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, sometime after we start our 
legislative day, I will come to the well and I will present Articles of 
Impeachment that will differ from the prior Articles of Impeachment. 
These articles will associate commentary made in the highest office in 
the land with policies that are produced.
  When you are in the White House and you say ugly comments about a 
continent, the countries within that continent, about other countries, 
and you are talking about immigration policy, surely it is reasonable 
to conclude that your commentary can be converted into your policy, 
that it can become part of your policy, and that if you conclude and if 
you, by your commentary, would have us know that you may have concluded 
that people from a predominantly White country are more welcome than 
people from countries of color, it is not unreasonable for one to 
conclude that your immigration policy may be one that is race-based 
masquerading as one that is merit-based. It is not unreasonable, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, as I close, I want to apologize to people who I may have 
offended with my message, because the intent is not to offend. The 
intent is to speak the truth.
  Mr. Speaker, I take no great solace in having to bring this truth 
before the Congress of the United States of America. This is not 
something that I came to Congress to do. It is not something that I 
take great pleasure in doing. People say ugly things about me and to 
me. Just today, we had a call to our office, a threat that involved the 
taking of life.
  So this is nothing that I do with any degree of pleasure. I do it 
because it is right. And to all of the people who I may have offended, 
to colleagues that may somehow think ill of what I do, you have my 
apologies. It is really not about you. It is about democracy. It is 
about government of the people, by the people, and whether we will 
maintain government of the people, by the people. It is about the 
Republic and whether we will do as Franklin indicated, keep the 
Republic that we have.
  It really is not about any individual. It is not about any political 
party. It is about the greatest country in the world and whether we, 
who have the ability, the responsibility, if you will, to take on these 
challenges, will do so in such a way as to protect the institutions 
that we love.
  I am giving you my position. I give no one else's position. I am a 
caucus of one. It is called the liberated democratic caucus. That is 
who I am, a liberated Democrat. That means that I cannot only speak 
truth to power, I can speak truth about power.
  Tonight, the truth is that we have a country in crisis. The stock 
market is up, yes. Jobs, yes, people are employed. There is something 
to be said about the types of jobs at minimum wage, but for this 
soliloquy, let's just say people are employed.
  But these things are not what make a country great. The greatness of 
a country is not measured by how we treat people who live in the sweets 
of life. The greatness of a country is measured by how you treat people 
who live in the streets of life. Those who live in the streets of life 
are the ones who have to cope with bigotry that many of us never see 
and many don't understand.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to have had this moment to talk about 
the time that we will share tomorrow. It will take place. I do look 
forward to having the opportunity to stand in the well again of the 
Congress of America. It is a preeminent privilege, a superlative 
pleasure, and a splendiferous honor.
  Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank 
the Congressional Progressive Caucus for allowing and facilitating this 
Special Order hour on DREAMers and DACA.

  On my previous intervention, I highlighted how we contemplated 
tonight, as this House passed a continuing resolution to fund 
government, and how for many months we contemplated three pieces of 
legislation to address the issues of DACA recipients and DREAMers that 
were drafted in a bipartisan way.
  As I mentioned earlier, the first one is the clean Dream Act. The 
second one, put together by the Problem Solvers Caucus, is the USA Act.
  The other Chamber, which is convening right now as I speak to debate 
whether or not the government should continue to be funded and to take 
up the continuing resolution that we sent over to the other House, as 
they debate that, they will realize that none of the three proposals 
that I highlighted earlier--the Dream Act, the USA Act, and also the 
immigration framework that came over from bipartisan Senators--is 
included in that continuing resolution, leaving the DREAMers and DACA 
recipients out in the cold, propelling me to once again vote against 
the continuing resolution, as I did over 3 weeks ago.

[[Page H551]]

  This particular issue impacts 800,000 DREAMers across the Nation, a 
population bigger than any one of our congressional districts.
  Mr. Speaker, they will have a profound impact on the economy if they 
are left out in the cold. According to the Center for American 
Progress, my district, the 13th Congressional District in New York 
which I represent, will lose more than $155 million in their own local 
GDP. My home State, New York, will lose $2.6 billion. This is not chump 
change. This is what the numbers show that we will lose.
  So this is not a matter to be taken lightly. These young people are 
not just a group of folks who will have an important impact on our 
economy. They are also having an impact on healthcare. Many of them are 
working to serve our senior population. Many of them continue to be 
providing services impacting patients across our Nation's healthcare 
system.
  According to a 2016 survey by groups, including the National 
Immigration Law Center and the Center for American Progress, more than 
one in five DREAMers also works in the healthcare and educational 
industries.
  So these young people who are being left out in the cold by this 
continuing resolution that is being debated in the Senate right now 
work in our hospitals, in our clinics, in our community-based clinics. 
They take care of our seniors, our children, those who are perhaps ill 
with a catastrophic disease. They also work in our educational system. 
So they are productive members of our society.
  Let me just say that they are also working very hard to distinguish 
themselves in higher education. Every year, an estimated 65,000 
undocumented students graduate from high school. About 10,000 
undocumented students graduate from college every single year.
  Before President Obama announced DACA, these young people faced great 
barriers when it came to higher education. We are nowhere close to 
where we need to be if 55,000 high school graduates are not pursuing a 
higher education.
  Let's not forget these students. Let's not forget these DREAMers. 
Let's not forget these DACA recipients. We have made a full effort in 
the House and in the Senate to have a bipartisan approach to solving 
this issue, but yet, once again, the continuing resolution which is 
currently, right now, being debated in the Senate chose to leave the 
DREAMers out in the cold.
  Mr. Speaker, we will continue this fight. I ask the DREAMers not to 
be afraid. I ask them not to be deterred, not to be discouraged, not to 
dismay. We will continue this fight until they are allowed to stay here 
with their families and they can continue to make America a stronger 
nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________