[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 19315-19322]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 5281, 
    DEVELOPMENT, RELIEF, AND EDUCATION FOR ALIEN MINORS ACT OF 2010

  Mr. POLIS, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged report 
(Rept. No. 111-677) on the resolution (H. Res. 1756) providing for 
consideration of the Senate amendments to 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, which was referred 
to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1756 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1756

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table 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 to consider in the House, without intervention 
     of any point of order except those arising under clause 10 of 
     rule XXI, a single motion offered by the chair of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary or his designee that the House 
     concur in the Senate amendments numbered 1 and 2, and that 
     the House concur in the Senate amendment numbered 3 with the 
     amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. The Senate amendments and the 
     motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. POLIS. For purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 
minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx. All time 
yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. POLIS. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 1756.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the DREAM Act is one of the most important pieces of 
legislation that I have ever discussed on the floor of the House. It 
means everything to hundreds of thousands of de facto Americans. To 
them and to all of us, it is supremely important and supremely urgent. 
We have a choice between forcing a brain drain from our country or 
retaining the best and brightest to contribute to our country and make 
it stronger and more prosperous.
  The young people covered under this bill are the children any parent 
would be proud of--our sons and daughters, our neighbors, our 
classmates, prom kings and queens, football players, and cheerleaders--
who stayed in school, played by the rules, graduated, worked hard, and 
stayed out of trouble. They are the children of our great Nation.
  We, too, should be proud--not proud of the broken and dysfunctional 
immigration system and lack of enforcement that put them in this 
situation, not proud of their parents' violations of our immigration 
laws, no matter how out of touch with reality those laws may be, not 
proud of the indignities, discrimination and fear that these young 
people have faced at every turn--but of how these young Americans have 
overcome adversity and have demonstrated American exceptionalism, their 
pluck, ingenuity, ambition, drive, and creativity in pursuit of, as our 
Declaration of Independence puts it, life, liberty and the pursuit of 
happiness. These dreamers embody the very best among our American 
values, and we should be proud to call them countrymen.
  This is a great Nation, and we will be greater still, stronger still, 
and more prosperous still with the full participation of these young 
men and women, each with the opportunity to go as far in life as their 
ambitions and abilities take them.
  To be clear: The DREAM Act would provide conditional status to only a 
very limited number of individuals who meet ALL of the following 
standards. They must:
  1. Have been brought to the United States when they were 15 years old 
or younger;
  2. Have lived in the United States for not less than 5 years before 
the date of enactment;
  3. Have been a person of good moral character, as defined by the 
Immigration and Nationality Act;
  4. Have graduated from an American high school or obtained a GED;
  5. Be 29 years old or younger on the date of enactment;
  6. Submit biometric information;
  7. Undergo security and law-enforcement background checks;
  8. Undergo a medical examination; and
  9. Register for the Selective Service.
  Only after 10 years in this conditional status, could recipients 
apply for legal permanent residence. In order to adjust their status 
they must:
  1. Have completed 2 years of college; or
  2. Have served in the U.S. Armed Forces for at least 2 years and, if 
discharged, has received an honorable discharge;
  3. Demonstrate the ability to read, write, and speak English;
  4. Have maintained good moral character throughout the 10-year 
conditional period; and
  5. Pay all back taxes owed.
  This debate is about Zendy.
  Zendy was brought to the United States when she was four from 
Zacatecas, Mexico. Zendy grew up in the United States, and found out 
that her parents took her here illegally when she was 9, because one of 
her friends was flying to Montana and their family invited her, but her 
parents told her she couldn't go because she didn't have papers. Zendy 
went to prom senior year, ``it was really cool,'' she said, ``finally 
my mom let me and I wanted to look pretty for prom, I didn't have a 
date so me and my friends went to the fair.''
  Zendy has a passion for law enforcement. As she put it, ``I want to 
help stop the drug cartels.'' Zendy, who is currently enrolled at the 
Community College of Denver, wants to be a DEA agent. Our decision 
today will determine if she engages in law enforcement to protect our 
laws, or she is pursued by law enforcement in violation of our laws. 
Will we create an agent of public safety, or will we criminalize a 
young woman because of actions that were not her own. Will we allow 
Zendy to become someone who protects us, or someone we must waste money 
criminalizing.
  What benefits America more?
  ``I want to be in law enforcement and doing what I want to do in my 
life.''
  Mr Speaker, we want Zendy as an American.
  This debate is about Claudia.
  Claudia is 21 years old now, and is a 3rd year college student at 
University of New Mexico. She attends college in New Mexico because 
unfortunately Colorado doesn't offer in-state tuition. She was brought 
here when she was 7 years old. In high school, she was vice president 
of the Latino Youth Leadership Club and engaged in hundreds of hours of 
community service tutoring younger kids.
  Claudia enjoyed tutoring younger children, and wants to be an early 
childhood education teacher, teaching preschool and kindergarten.
  She has no immediate family in Guadalajara, Mexico, where her family 
took her from. She was brought up here, doesn't remember much from 
there.
  Claudia is a role model for her 11-year-old younger sister.
  ``I actually feel discriminated, it is sad that we are looked upon 
differently than other people even though we've been here long enough 
to know everything. This law would help me be near my family.''
  Claudia would transfer to University of Colorado, closer to her 
family, if the Dream Act passes, and poses the question for us: Put 
yourself in my situation: What would you do? What's the right thing to 
do?
  Mr. Speaker, we want Claudia as an American.
  This debate is about Luis.
  Luis was brought to the United States by his parents when he was ten 
years old in 2001. He grew up as American as anyone else, he was active 
in French Club and was on the varsity soccer team at Skyline High 
School. He was accepted into UNC but couldn't attend because of lack of 
status. He wants to be a psychiatrist but is not in school because of 
his immigration status, accepted to UNC, went to

[[Page 19316]]

classes, dorms, couldn't go. There was ``never a difference between me 
and my peers,'' he says.
  Luis wants to be a psychologist. Luis also seems to have a potential 
career ahead of him as a pundit, or perhaps even in public service or 
as a, g-d forbid, lobbyist. He said, without any malice, ``I might add 
in truly in the nature of trying to understand motivations and work 
with them. Many of the Republicans are looking into the money side of 
things, they won't listen to someone like me, what I would tell them is 
they should look at us not as a burden but as someone who will brighten 
their future. We are here and we're not going to go anywhere, and we're 
going to make this country better, create jobs and make the economy 
better.''
  ``America'', said Luis, is ``the place where you can make things 
happen.''
  In a day of age in which we suffer from a national malaise of 
laziness, what better infusion of ingenuity can we attain than under 
the Dream Act?
  Mr. Speaker, we want Luis as an American.
  This debate is about Angel.
  Angel, is a senior in high school in my district in Colorado. His 
parents brought him from Zacatecas, Mexico when he was six years old. 
In High School, he is very active and serves on the student council and 
in the Theater Club. He won an essay contest a couple years ago, and 
got a trip to NYC where he told me how excited he was to meet members 
of the cast of Wicked. The four days he spent in NYC helped manifest in 
Angel a keen interest in the arts, and he wants to go to college for 
performing arts.
  He is 19 years old, and serves as a role model for his brother, who 
is in the same situation and is 14 years old and was brought here when 
he was one. Angel has no memories of any other country and has never 
been back to Mexico.
  Mr. Speaker, we want Angel as an American.
  This debate is about Michelle.
  Michelle was brought to the United States at age 7, her little sister 
had skin disease caused by pollution in Mexico City. Good life, dad was 
a lawyer, mom stayed home, now clean homes.
  Michelle is now in her 1st semester at Community College of Denver. 
She attended Fairview High School and was on the Nova girls soccer team 
as a forward. She also won an award from our Boulder Youth Advisory 
board, or YOAB, for greatest helper in the Boulder community because of 
her community service. She credited one of her teachers, Mrs. 
Carpenter, for helping her get involved with community service 
including Rotary Club.
  Michelle has never been back to Mexico City, and is now 18 years old. 
She found out was undocumented, in 8th grade, when she wanted to go on 
a trip to Washington DC with her school, nations capital, school trip.
  After completing her requirements, she would like to transfer to 
study marine biology.
  ``I would love to study marine biology but am not sure what they wont 
let me because of my situation,'' she said.
  If not marine biology, then a teacher.
  ``My life is here now. It's not our decision to come here but we came 
and we're studying and we're trying make our lives better than our 
parents and to make a good life for ourselves. They are stopping the 
dreams for students who don't have papers. I don't know if they want us 
to work in McDonald's or Wendy's, I don't know what they want us to do, 
they aren't letting us reach our goals or our dreams.''
  Mr. Speaker, we want Michelle as an American.
  Constituent service is one of the most fulfilling components of our 
job. Regardless of party, regardless of the ideology of our districts, 
or our own ideologies, we are fundamentally in this business to help 
people to a person. When a veteran of a war is wrongly denied their 
benefits, we go to bat for them and help them cut through the 
bureaucratic impasse and get what they have earned by serving our 
country, or when we help a constituent stay in their home by 
identifying an alternative to foreclosure. What thrill can top that?
  And then, Mr. Speaker, there are those who we are unable to help.
  Chih Tsung Kao is 24. His story starts when he was 4. He entered the 
States with his mother with a visitor's visa, which was later changed 
to a student visa. ``I was basically dropped off at my grandmother's in 
Boulder, Colorado as my mother left back for Taiwan.'' During his stay 
with his paternal grandparents, his student visa status expired due to 
their negligence. Chih was 17 before he learned that his visa had 
expired. Since then, he's looked for different legal routes to obtain 
some sort of legal status; all leading to dead ends.
  Chih is a college graduate with a Civil Engineering degree from the 
Colorado School of Mines in Golden, Colorado. He is currently serving 
in the Taiwanese military due to their conscription policy, and is 
trying to readjust to his new life there. This is how he describes his 
new life: I am illiterate in Chinese, which makes simple, everyday 
tasks here in the military difficult. I am also trying to learn basic 
spoken Chinese. . . . I can't even understand their basic commands 
here, and only move when others move. I will see how they will utilize 
me after my basic training ends and I am assigned a new post . . . but 
many superiors have told me they're not sure what they will be doing 
with me.
  Chih contacted my office for help, but I was impotent to intervene 
and America lost this great mind, this great contributor, this 
engineer. Chih knows that the Dream Act comes too late for him, but 
told me to share his story with you, because, as he put it, ``The Dream 
Act may not affect me, I know that it will greatly benefit those that 
are in similar situations as I was. Many of them are students who 
strive to contribute to the workforce legally. I hope this letter helps 
paint a small piece of a larger picture for those that don't understand 
the situation and the feeling of helplessness many students and young 
people have in the States. It's a hard thing, feeling like the country 
you consider home, doesn't want you in the country at all.''
  Visualize the image, Mr. Speaker, of a young man, with an engineering 
degree from Colorado's premier engineering school, forced to serve in 
the military of a foreign country where he knows no one, trying to obey 
orders in a language he doesn't even understand.
  This is a waste of human capital, a waste of our public taxpayer 
money, to spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars educating 
Chih only to force him to serve in a military of a country he doesn't 
even speak the language of. It's farcical. It's absurd. And it happens 
every day and the Dream Act will solve it. For all of us in this body, 
Chih is the one we couldn't help.
  We hold their futures in our hands. Mr. Speaker, please don't put us 
in the position of having to go back to them, yet again, and say not 
yet, when we all know it is inevitable. And this debate is about how to 
make our country stronger, more secure, more prosperous. This debate is 
about our values. This debate is about Zendy, Luis, this debate is 
about our Country and our future. I encourage my colleagues to do what 
they know to be the right thing.
  Over $70,000 of taxpayer money was invested in Michelle. Now it's our 
choice. Do we want her to be a respected marine biologist or an illegal 
immigrant cleaning buildings for $6/hour? It's up to us. Which is 
better for us? For our nation?
  What would you do in their shoes?
  In our shoes, what do we want them to do to better ourselves and our 
nation?
  In consigning a future scientist who may discover the cure to cancer 
to clean offices at 2 in the morning at minimum wage, we deprive 
ourselves of the cure to cancer.
  ``There is a million-dollar difference, over a lifetime, between the 
earning capacity of a high school graduate and a college graduate. 
Research also shows that people who go to college are healthier, are 
more likely to volunteer and to participate in their community, and are 
less likely to be incarcerated or rely on public assistance. . . . It 
is imperative that action be taken in 2010 to finally make college 
education available to these qualified graduates of U.S. high 
schools.''--Michael Crow, President, Arizona State University.
  ``The DREAM Act would throw a lifeline to these students who are 
already working hard in our middle and high schools and living in our 
communities by granting them the temporary legal status that would 
allow them to pursue postsecondary education. I believe it is in our 
best interest to educate all students to their full potential--It 
vastly improves their lives and grows our communities and economy.''--
Drew Gilpin Faust, President, Harvard University.
  The Dream Act will finally help eliminate the achievement gap in our 
schools, and inspire other students by upping the ante. Secretary 
Duncan said it well:
  ``Passing the Dream Act will unleash the full potential of young 
people who live out values that all Americans cherish--a strong work 
ethic; service to others; and a deep loyalty to our country. It will 
also strengthen our military, bolster our global economic 
competitiveness and increase our educational standing in the world.''
  The Dream Act will finally help eliminate the achievement gap in our 
schools, and inspire other students by upping the ante.
  The theme of my service in Congress is human capital issues. 
Improving our schools, increasing access to higher education. Taking on 
entrenched interests where necessary to

[[Page 19317]]

increase our human capital. The flip side of the education aspect of 
developing our human capital is immigration. Not only do we want to 
grow the next generation of global leaders at home, we want to import 
the best and brightest from around the world. And we keep shooting 
ourselves in our own foot in this regard. We lost Chih, not because of 
him, but because of us. We turned a highly trained taxpayer-financed 
engineer into an incompetent enlistee in a foreign military. Brilliant.
  The DREAM Act provides students powerful incentives to stay in 
school, do well and graduate. It is a practical step toward realizing a 
return on the U.S. public education system's investment in immigrant 
youths. A 2010 study by the UCLA North American Integration and 
Development Center estimates that the total earnings of DREAM Act 
beneficiaries over the course of their working lives would be between 
$1.4 trillion and $3.6 trillion.
  We want them working in America. We want these potential high-earning 
tax payers to stay in our country and boost our economy.
  A 2007 study by the Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that 
each high school dropout cost the nation approximately $260,000 in lost 
taxes and productivity. State and local economies suffer when they have 
less educated populaces. The nation's economy and competitive standing 
also suffer when there are high dropout rates.
  Failure to pass the Dream Act will lead to a brain drain of our own 
making, a drain in which the very best of a generation, the college 
bound, the graduate school bound, the doctors and servicemen, 
scientists and poets are given a terrible choice: Go to a distant land 
where you have no connection, or stay here and work in the underground 
unskilled labor market.
  The DREAM Act would also improve our national security. Leaders from 
the armed services have been nearly unanimous in their support of this 
bill because they recognize that it would help the military ``shape and 
maintain a mission-ready All Volunteer Force.'' Former Secretary of 
State General Collin Powell and military leaders from both parties have 
spoken up in support of the DREAM Act. Defense Secretary Robert Gates 
said the DREAM Act would improve ``military recruiting and readiness'' 
and the U.S. Department of Defense Office of the Undersecretary of 
Defense for Personnel and Readiness has gone as far as including the 
DREAM Act in its strategic plan.
  It is difficult to make moral arguments that change minds in this 
chamber. Members of Congress, like Americans as a whole, come from 
various faith traditions including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, 
Buddhism, agnosticism, and atheism, and of course various strains of 
orthodoxy within their tradition.
  However, there is no other area of law in which a young minor, a two 
year old, is culpable.
  A. (Deuteronomy 24:16)--``Fathers shall not be put to death for their 
sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall 
be put to death for his own sin.''
  B. (Ezekiel 18:20)--``The person who sins will die. The son will not 
bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear 
the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the 
righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will 
be upon himself.''
  There is no moral code prevalent in Judeo-Christian thought that 
suggests that it is moral for humanity to visit the sins of the father 
upon the son. Our values are reflected in our legal code: When someone 
dies, their debts are not passed down to the son or daughter. When an 
adult is pulled over for speeding, no ticket is given to the two year 
old riding in the child-seat in back. But that is exactly what some are 
advocating here. Ticket the two year old who was along for the ride, 
they say. What they were doing was illegal. The child was speeding. 
Regardless of one's faith, punishing the wrong person for a crime, 
because of a blood relation, defies our ethical sense.
  Ticketing the two year old makes no more sense than penalizing a 
child for passively being brought here by their parents. A two year 
old, a five year old, an eleven year old is not only not competent to 
make such a choice, but even if you assumed that they were, they are in 
practice unable to economically or socially separate from the family 
unit that provides for their sustenance. A child must go with his or 
her parents, there is nothing else a child can do. We don't even go up 
to 18, the age of majority, with this bill. To eliminate any question, 
we admit that a 17 year old, a 16 year old, should somehow know better, 
and leave their parents and home and support structure if their parents 
try to take them somewhere illegally. That's a bad assumption. It 
breaks my heart that we had to make that concession, because I know 16 
year olds, 17 year olds, Madam Speaker, and think of some of the 16 
year olds you know. Are they really mature and capable enough to leave 
their parents and survive completely on their own? Perhaps some are, 
but to make this bill even less controversial we set the maximum age at 
15. Which means a 16 year old is supposed to competently make a 
decision to leave his parents if they choose to immigrate illegally. 
That's the concession we made to get this bill passed. No one can argue 
that an 8 year old or 12 year old is capable of what we expect a 17 
year old to have done under this bill. The lack of a DREAM Act 
mechanism is immoral for our nation, and forces underage children to 
bear the heavy costs of their parents' decisions to violate our laws.
  One argument I hear is that the DREAM Act will only encourage more 
illegal immigration. That argument shows a profound lack of 
understanding about what brings immigrants here. First of all, the 
illegal immigrants in question already came here without a DREAM Act. 
Illegal immigrants will continue to come here and stay here as long as 
we continue to make a mockery of immigration enforcement, and as long 
as they can earn more money here. We have no meaningful workplace 
enforcement. Comprehensive immigration reform, and I'm proud to say I'm 
a co-sponsor of the House bill, would have solved that. We could have 
reduced the number of illegal immigrants from around 15 million to 
close to zero. But we did not. So we are where we are, and we are not 
talking about comprehensive immigration reform today, instead we are 
talking about one of the politically easiest, most economically 
important, and most morally pressing element of immigration reform: 
recognizing the hundreds of thousands of de facto Americans, who were 
brought here as minors without their knowledge or consent and that our 
taxpayer dollars have educated 30 and will be living their lives in our 
nation as legal entities with the potential to eventually attain the 
full rights and responsibilities of citizenship.
  Passing the DREAM Act would reduce the number of illegal immigrants 
by over 500,000,
  Those who oppose the DREAM Act support the ongoing presence of over 
500,000 more illegal immigrants within our borders. Opponents of the 
DREAM Act make a travesty of the rule of law and facilitate the ongoing 
presence of undocumented foreign nationals inside our country, which 
hurts the budgets of counties, cities, and so frustrates the states 
with good reason. Opponents of the DREAM act would make a criminal, 
rather than a police officer, out of Zandy.
  States like Arizona have taken actions against illegal immigration 
precisely because of the size of this issue, and Congress's failure to 
do anything about. Well, finally we have a chance to cut illegal 
immigration by about 5 percent. That's substantial. I'd rather cut it 
by 100 percent, but 5 percent. It's something we can be proud of--a 
legitimate first step to show the American people that we are serious 
about solving this problem. At the same time, it will strengthen our 
economy, improve our schools, make money for taxpayers, and help 
restore the rule of law to our nation.
  Some opponents of the bill have charged that this bill is being 
pushed through without sufficient time to review it. This is hard to 
understand considering the bill was introduced nearly 10 years ago, and 
has been introduced into every subsequent Congress. In spite of this, a 
great deal of misinformation has recently been spreading regarding this 
bill. In order to set the record straight, let us explicitly address 
some of these concerns.
  Opponents of this bill have claimed it has not received a CBO score, 
when in fact it has. CBO found that the DREAM Act would reduce the 
deficit by 1.7 billion dollars over ten years.


                               CBO SCORE

  H.R. 6497 would affect federal revenues in a number of ways. The 
increase in authorized workers would affect individual and corporate 
income taxes, as well as social insurance taxes. On balance, those 
changes would increase revenues by $1.7 billion over 10 years, 
according to estimates provided by the staff of the Joint Committee on 
Taxation (JCT). Newly authorized workers also would be eligible for 
some refundable tax credits. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 6497 
would decrease net direct spending by about $500 million over the 2011-
2020 period. That amount reflects changes in spending for refundable 
tax credits, Social Security, Medicare, student loans, and the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS would charge fees to certify 
legal status under the bill. Homeland Security (DHS). DHS would charge 
individuals fees to certify their legal status under the bill. The 
department's costs to implement the bill would be covered by those 
fees. Under the proposal, DHS also would impose a surcharge on 
individuals seeking to obtain or renew their conditional nonimmigrant 
status. DHS would not be authorized to spend those surcharges. CBO

[[Page 19318]]

has not completed an estimate of the legislation's potential effects on 
discretionary spending, but any such effects would probably be small.
  I expect all Members who are serious about the deficit will 
enthusiastically vote for this bill.
  The DREAM Act would not extend any special benefits to beneficiaries. 
The bill specifically excludes them during the 10-year conditional 
period from receiving any government subsidies to participate in the 
health insurance exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act. Those 
with conditional status also would be ineligible for Medicaid, Food 
Stamps and other entitlement programs.
  States will still have the authority to decide who is eligible for 
public higher education benefits based on residency. If a state 
provides eligibility for in-state tuition to DREAM beneficiaries in the 
state and they choose to attend a public university outside of the 
state, they will pay the same rates as other out-of-state students.
  Students may only access benefits that they work for, or pay for. 
DREAM beneficiaries are only eligible for federal student loans (which 
must be paid back), and federal work-study programs, where they must 
work for any benefit they receive. Students are prohibited from 
obtaining Pell or other federal grants.
  To be clear: recipients of the DREAM would not be able to receive any 
federal funds. These concessions were not easy to make. While painful, 
however, these are fair concessions to ease the concerns regarding this 
bill. For opponents to continue their obstructionism demonstrates a 
clear lack of interest in actually solving our immigration challenges.
  In my state of Colorado, 46,000 young people will be eligible, 
according to one study. These young people are an untapped resource for 
my state that would boost the local economies of where they live.
  Our decision before us today is clear, we can either create a marine 
scientist to contribute to our country and increase our knowledge, or 
create an illegal immigrant out of Claudia.
  Our nation deserves more scientists and engineers, not more illegal 
immigrants.
  I also want to pose two questions, one is what would we ask of them 
(what do we want them to do), the second is, what is best for us and 
our country?
  Claudia posed it well ``What do they want us to do?'' Instead of 
going to college or serving in the military, Are we telling Claudia and 
the others to clean buildings at night? Are we telling them to become 
nannies, construction workers, housekeepers or other occupations 
available to undocumented immigrants because of our lax enforcement? Or 
are we telling her to go to a country where she knows no one and has 
never been in her memory, where she barely speaks the language and 
would be lost and unable to work? I want Claudia to be the best darn 
Marine Scientist in the United States and to make great scientific 
discoveries that benefit humanity and improve our knowledge of the 
oceans. For those who oppose the DREAM Act, what do you want Claudia to 
do?
  And what serves us best? What serves our interests best? Is it 
Claudia working illegally as a housekeeper? Is it her leaving our 
nation after we've invested tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer 
money in her education? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to our country 
to allow her to live up to her potential here with the rights and 
responsibilities of an American. These stateless young people will be a 
credit to their nation, let's make it our nation.
  Madam Speaker, this debate is about Ray. Ray was brought here when 
she was two years old. Her parents told her that she was born in the 
United States so she wouldn't feel the stigma of being foreign born. So 
Ray grew up not knowing she was foreign born until she was a teenager. 
Ray wanted to be involved with the fashion industry. Her tough, can-do 
attitude led her to start her own lace business. Unfortunately, Ray is 
no longer with us, but don't fret, this immigrant story ends happily. 
Ray Keller, my great grandmother, passed away at the age of 98 in 1989. 
Without friendly immigration laws that allowed people to naturalize, I 
wouldn't be standing here before you today, as a member of the United 
States Congress. So too, there are future generations of Americans, 
including I'm sure future members of this body, who are relying on our 
vote today to recognize their forebears as the excellent Americans that 
they already are in all but name. Madam Speaker, Ray Keller was a proud 
American.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying 
bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding time.
  Today, I rise in opposition to the rule for H.R. 6497, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't think there is anyone on our side of the aisle 
who isn't empathetic to the fact that the youth brought to America as 
children did not come here illegally of their own accord. I certainly 
feel that way.
  However, the majority of immigrants come to America because of what 
our Nation stands for, which is rooted in our foundation--the 
cornerstone being our rule of law. In order to maintain our liberties 
and freedom, Congress must always respect and preserve the rule of law. 
We must exercise our principles in fairness, not inequity; and I would 
argue that amnesty is not fairness but a direct assault on the rule of 
law.
  Our immigration system is in disarray, and any immigration 
legislation we consider should begin with securing the border and 
should go through regular order.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Castor) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding and rise in 
support of the DREAM Act.
  I rise today in support of thousands of Florida students--and 
families and businesses throughout my community--who will benefit under 
the Dream Act.
  Our great nation is built fundamental principles of liberty, equality 
and opportunity.
  These values apply to all, except for a small group of young people 
who have been stuck in limbo through no fault of their own and face 
obstacles to education and productivity.
  Young woman from central Florida came to the U.S. from Costa Rica 
with her family when she was very young. She graduated from an arts 
magnet school with a 4.2 GPA. She was accepted to every school she 
applied to, but she couldn't attend any because tuition was too high 
and she didn't qualify for financial aid. The Dream Act will help.
  Armwood High School valedictorian who faced obstacles as he tried to 
get college financial aid and scholarships. Despite perfect grades, he 
had a tough time getting the financial help he needed.
  Young woman I know who was born in Mexico City. She grew up with only 
her mother after she was brought to America as a baby. Despite stellar 
grades in high school, she was ineligible for in-state college tuition.
  ``It would have given me a lot more opportunities,'' she says. ``It 
would have made me part of the fabric of this country that I have lived 
in my whole life and that I have contributed to my whole life.''
  In Florida, in-state tuition costs about $5,200 per year, but out-of-
state at the University of South Florida, $16,000. At the University of 
Florida, it exceeds $25,000. The Dream Act will breathe new life into 
the hopes and dreams of young people who only know America as their 
home. We need to support and encourage higher education, instead of 
preventing and discouraging these teens from attending college.
  The Dream Act would allow students who entered the United States 
before their 16th birthday, who have lived in the country for at least 
five years, who are in good moral standing and who have graduated from 
high school to be classified as permanent residents and pursue a path 
toward citizenship. As permanent residents, they would be able to apply 
for in-state tuition and federal student financial aid, enabling them 
to pursue the American Dream of higher education.
  Young adults could also earn conditional permanent residency status 
if they complete two years in the military.
  I am proud to co-sponsor this vital legislation and look forward to 
its swift passage so we can help put our hard-working and intelligent 
students on the road to citizenship.

                              {time}  1730

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank my friend.
  I think it's unfortunate the way that the majority leadership has 
treated this issue when, Mr. Speaker, you see that after bringing the 
stimulus and the cap-and-trade and the health care legislation and all 
of the political capital that the President and this majority 
leadership had has been exhausted; and after receiving that defeat at 
the polls, after all that they bring this legislation to the floor.

[[Page 19319]]

  I think the process is most unfortunate. And the way in which they 
have handled this legislation, Mr. Speaker, shows the lack of interest 
that they have had in it. That doesn't negate, however, the fact that 
the legislation is extremely important. If there is anything that 
distinguishes the United States of America--I think in an appropriate 
and in an admirable way--it is that we are a meritocracy. You stand or 
you fall in the United States of America based on your own decisions, 
not the decisions of your parents or your grandparents or their 
grandparents. Your decisions determine your reputation in the United 
States of America.
  So what we are dealing with in this legislation is who we are dealing 
with, number one, the kind of immigration that we work day in and day 
out to try to attract and retain in the United States, college-educated 
people who have become so after extraordinary hard work.
  Secondly, Mr. Speaker, after thinking about what we are trying to do, 
it all boils down to the decisions. I referred previously to the fact 
that the United States is distinguished by the fact that the American 
people stand or fall based on our own decisions. What are the decisions 
that those students who we're dealing with in this legislation have 
made in their lives? They didn't make the decision to come to the 
United States out of status. The only decisions that they have made in 
their lives have been to work hard, to study hard, to make our 
communities proud. This legislation seeks to give them an opportunity 
to make their situation regular, normal so that they can contribute 
even more to the greatness of this Nation.
  At the end of the day, despite the unfortunate process, we cannot 
stop thinking about who we are dealing with in this legislation. That 
is why I have been, for a decade, a sponsor or cosponsor of this 
legislation, and that is why I am proud to support it this evening. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague and soon-to-be chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Smith 
from Texas.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I thank my colleague for yielding and a 
distinguished member of the Rules Committee for giving me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. The so-called DREAM Act is a 
nightmare for the American people, and this proposed rule is a 
nightmare for House Members. Once again, we are considering a bill that 
Members have not had adequate time to review, that has not gone through 
the proper committee process, and that we cannot amend. This is far 
from the open and transparent process we were promised.
  The majority promised that Members of this body would be able to 
review legislation for 24 hours prior to a vote. We have only had the 
text of this bill for a few hours. So much for that commitment to the 
American people.
  If this rule passes, the majority will have prevented Members from 
offering amendments. And the majority has even eliminated the one 
possible way the bill could be improved, with a motion to recommit. 
This undemocratic way of considering legislation stands in contrast to 
the way Republicans will operate in the next Congress. Come January, 
the Republican majority will show the Democrats what it's like to have 
a fair, honest and open debate. We will educate them on the democratic 
process.
  Just over a month ago, the American people rebuked the way that 
Democrats have run the House of Representatives and the Federal 
Government in general, so one might think that the majority would 
change their ways, but it seems that the Democrats have learned nothing 
and have forgotten everything.
  If this rule is adopted, we will be forced to consider a bill that we 
will have no chance to amend, even though it puts the interests of 
illegal immigrants ahead of the interests of American citizens. It 
hurts American workers, rewards lawbreakers, and encourages continued 
defiance of the most fundamental American value--the rule of law.
  Today Americans face an unemployment rate of 9.8 percent. The 
unemployment rate has exceeded 9.5 percent for 16 straight months, the 
longest stretch since the Great Depression. The DREAM Act makes illegal 
immigrants eligible to work legally in the United States. Why are 
Democrats doing this to American workers? This Congress should focus on 
creating jobs for Americans, not promoting policies that cause 
unemployment.
  I am sympathetic to the young, illegal immigrant children who were 
brought here by their parents. Because their parents disregarded 
America's immigration laws, they are in a difficult position. However, 
this bill actually rewards the very illegal immigrant parents who 
knowingly violated our laws.
  Once the DREAM Act's amnesty recipients become citizens and turn 21, 
if they haven't already they can sponsor their illegal immigrant 
parents, spouse, or children for legalization, who can then sponsor 
others, resulting in chain migration that will further hurt American 
workers and American taxpayers.
  As has happened with past amnesties, this new amnesty will encourage 
more illegal immigration because other illegal immigrant parents will 
bring their children to the U.S. with the expectation that they, too, 
will benefit from the DREAM Act.
  Also, as soon as an individual files an application under the DREAM 
Act, the Department of Homeland Security is prohibited from removing 
them. So there is an automatic stay from deportation for anyone who 
applies under this bill. And criminals are not excluded. Those with 
histories of passport fraud, visa fraud, and even driving under the 
influence will be granted amnesty.
  Although the bill enacts disastrous policies, the lack of an open and 
fair process is another reason to oppose it and this rule.
  The majority has brought this bill to the floor without giving 
Members adequate time to review it. The majority has brought this bill 
to the floor without holding any hearings on the bill or its impact, 
thus depriving Members of the ability to learn how the bill would work 
or not work. The majority has brought this bill to the floor without 
committee approval, so Members have not had the opportunity to offer 
amendments. The majority has even eliminated the one way the minority 
is supposedly guaranteed as a way to address the people's concerns, a 
motion to recommit.
  In addition to the negative impact of the DREAM Act on American 
citizens and the rule of law, the undemocratic procedures justify 
strong opposition to the rule.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I have no additional speakers and reserve 
the balance of my time to allow the gentlelady to close.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to the rule for H.R. 
5281, the so-called DREAM Act; in fact, many of those and my 
constituents who abide by the rule of law would call this a ``nightmare 
act'' rather than the DREAM Act.
  This legislation has been misnamed from the beginning as an avenue 
for young men and women to obtain the American Dream; but let me be 
perfectly clear, Madam Speaker, H.R. 5281 is nothing short of amnesty 
for illegal immigrants. According to the Migration Policy Institute, an 
estimated 2 million immigrants will be eligible for amnesty under this 
bill. That number is not too difficult to imagine given that H.R. 5281 
would allow these individuals, once they are naturalized and become 21 
years of age, to exploit our broken system by sponsoring their 
immediate relatives with no numerical cap.

                              {time}  1740

  We call that chain migration. In fact, they could each bring in 
something like 179 other individuals.
  Further, the potential for fraud is exponentially great, considering 
that one provision of the bill mandates that the

[[Page 19320]]

immigrant has resided in the United States since they turned 16. My 
question is simple: How can we verify how long an illegal immigrant has 
been in the United States? We cannot and should not require ourselves 
to rely on the word of individuals whose very presence in the United 
States is illegal.
  So, Madam Speaker, we all know that the requirements to become a 
legalized permanent resident under H.R. 5281 do not actually mandate 
that the potential naturalized citizens complete any college or 
vocational degree. They just simply have to show up and go for 2 years. 
If the bill attempts to integrate and educate the immigrant workforce 
into America, this legislation certainly will not achieve that goal.
  So, in closing, Madam Speaker, H.R. 5281 will open the doors, yes, to 
criminal aliens obtaining permanent status to the detriment of legal 
immigrants. This legislation allows an illegal alien to submit an 
application for legalized permanent resident status; and in doing so, 
the Department of Homeland Security will no longer be allowed to deport 
them, criminal or not.
  I urge my colleagues, oppose this rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I now would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to both the rule 
and the so-called DREAM Act.
  Madam Speaker, the American people are adamantly opposed to the DREAM 
Act because they understand that it is nothing more than mass amnesty 
that will undoubtedly encourage millions more to illegally immigrate 
into our country. Yes, we are being told by those on the other side of 
the aisle that this is not amnesty. But if it walks like a duck, if it 
quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. And this may be a lame duck, 
Madam Speaker, but it is amnesty.
  The DREAM Act specifically focuses on promising young foreigners a 
bright future if their parents choose to break the law. This will 
unquestionably encourage desperate parents to bring their children, 
perhaps millions of them, across our borders illegally. And once the 
children gain citizenship, their parents and other immediate family 
members will be put on the fast track to citizenship through family 
unification and then will be eligible for all the rights and services 
currently enjoyed by American citizens.
  Moreover, if an illegal immigrant happens to be a racial or ethnic 
minority--the vast majority, of course, of illegals are of an ethnic or 
racial minority--then that individual will be entitled to all the 
education, employment, and other preferences for minorities that are 
written into our Federal and State laws as soon as, of course, their 
legal status is granted. As a result, the DREAM Act would not only put 
illegal immigrants on par with American citizens but, in many cases, 
would put them ahead of most American citizens who are not minorities 
and ahead of legal immigrants as well.
  It is not being coldhearted to acknowledge that every dollar spent on 
an illegal immigrant is $1 less for our own children, for our own 
seniors, and for all those in our society who have played by the rules, 
paid taxes, and expected that their government was going to watch out 
for them and for their needs before bestowing privileges and scarce 
resources on illegals who have not played by the rules.
  Yes, this is the DREAM Act, all right. It is the dream of millions 
living outside our borders to come to our country by whatever means and 
partake of the health, education, and other benefits that we can 
scarcely afford for our own citizens. For us, the citizens and legal 
immigrants, who have played by the rules, worked hard to build a better 
home and a better life for our families, this is not the DREAM Act. 
This is the nightmare act.
  I am well aware and appreciate our Nation's immigrant heritage. We 
have more legal immigration into our country annually than all the 
other nations of the world combined. And we should be proud of this, 
proud that we are so generous and open. But we must be honest about how 
many we can absorb without hurting the lives of our citizens and, yes, 
those legal immigrants who came here within the boundaries of the law.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California 
has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. We must oppose policies like the DREAM Act that 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 no more than bring millions more across our borders illegally, 
only this time, they will make sure they bring their kids. All of them. 
I ask my colleagues to join me in opposition to this DREAM--nightmare--
Act.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I am just wondering if the gentleman from 
Colorado has no speakers or is simply going to keep all his time until 
after our speakers have spoken.
  Mr. POLIS. I have already reserved the balance of my time for you to 
close. I have no further requests for time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I now would like to yield 1 minute to our 
distinguished colleague from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, for 4 years, the 
Democratic majority has promised to fix our broken immigration system. 
The President promised to pass immigration reform in the first 12 
months of his administration. Just another broken promise. Instead of 
passing meaningful legislation to secure our boarders, to protect our 
national security and to address the millions of people who are here 
undocumented living among us, this Congress has refused to do so, Madam 
Speaker, and now, in the final hours of their majority, they now bring 
up this bill. Just another example of why the American people 
overwhelmingly rejected this majority.
  Now, on the merits, those who stand to benefit from this bill include 
thousands of young adults who were raised in our country and really 
know no other country but America. They simply wish to pursue the 
American Dream and have the opportunity to study, to work hard, to 
serve in our Armed Forces. They are exactly the type of people that we 
want in this United States of America. I, therefore, urge my colleagues 
to support this legislation today.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to this rule and the bill, H.R. 5281. I agree 
with some of the presenters before me. It is not a DREAM Act. It's a 
nightmare act. It's one of those pieces of legislation that if the 
proponents actually understood the components of it, some of them would 
peel off, some of them would change their mind, and some of them would 
wish they could but they're on record and can't.
  The nightmare act is amnesty. Now, we need to come to an agreement on 
what amnesty is. I have long said that to grant amnesty is to pardon 
immigration lawbreakers and reward them with the objective of their 
crime. This legislation seeks to reward those who are, under the law, 
eligible for being sent back to their home countries.
  Now, it's everybody that says they came in on the day of their birth 
until the last day before they turned 16, but we don't have any way of 
verifying this. The certification and the background checks are 
completely impossible. About 50 percent of the people that come into 
the United States across our southern border don't have a legal 
existence in their home country, meaning they don't have birth 
certificates or a track of their life like we normally have here, so 
it's impossible to do background checks. They can say who they want to 
say they are. They can propose whatever they want to propose. They can 
say they were born in the United States or were brought into the United 
States. And they can say they had done so when they were 15 years old, 
they could have come into

[[Page 19321]]

the United States when they were 29 years and a day old and still be 
eligible under this bill because there is not a way to verify. So this 
is the thing that is designed to tug at our heartstrings, and it opens 
the door for amnesty, and it lays the foundation for a whole series of 
other pieces of amnesty components.
  But truthfully, this process is illegitimate. This is a repudiated, 
rejected 111th Congress. The American people went to the polls in 
unprecedented numbers, and they voted an unprecedented number of people 
out of office and put new faces in here. This lame duck session should 
never be used for a large agenda, and it has already been invalidated. 
Keep faith with the American people. Lame duck sessions are to provide 
the functions of government that can't be legitimately provided until 
the new Congress is gaveled in on January 4.

                              {time}  1750

  This process of no committee hearings, no subcommittee hearings, no 
subcommittee markup, no full committee hearing, no full committee 
markup, no access to this legislation that has changed four times--
there are four different iterations here on the floor--and now a same-
day rule up before the Rules Committee that still is the only committee 
that I know of on the Hill that meets without cameras, without the 
public presence knowing what is going on up there. I look forward to an 
open door and sunlight on the Rules Committee.
  But this CBO score that they tout as actually a plus for the 
government ignores that the CBO score says it is a $5 billion deficit 
spending in the second decade and likely for each decade thereafter. It 
ignores CIS, the Center for Immigration Services score, which scores 
the cost to local government, State and local government, at $6.2 
billion annually for the cost of providing education to the people that 
would otherwise be eligible for deportation.
  It triples the number of green cards. And it provides safe harbor, 
safe harbor for ``any alien'' who has a pending application under the 
DREAM Act. So if someone comes in, they can be 79 years old or 99 years 
old, they allege that they are younger than that, file the application 
under the DREAM Act, and now we have to go forward and adjudicate and 
determine you really weren't 16 or a day before 16 when you came into 
America, and you really weren't under 30 when you filed this 
application. But it is certain if this becomes law, there will be 
people into their late thirties and perhaps into their forties that 
would be granted citizenship underneath this because it takes that long 
to process.
  There are exemptions for fraud, exemptions that go so far as to 
reward it in a way that if someone falsely claims citizenship and was 
deported, they can't be adjudicated under this.
  This DREAM Act is an amnesty act, it is a nightmare act, and it must 
be opposed. There is more to be said in a broader debate, and I hope to 
engage in that.
  Mr. POLIS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for the time.
  I stand here, Mr. Speaker, in support of the DREAM Act. The time has 
come for this legislative body to do what is right and to not punish 
students for the mistakes that their parents have made.
  This legislation will give many bright, talented, and patriotic young 
men and women the opportunity to stay in this country, a country that 
they love, and to continue their college education or service in our 
proud military. These young people are motivated and only want the 
chance to give back to this country, their country.
  The DREAM Act is not amnesty. It will allow eligible students to get 
on a pathway toward permanent legal status later on. Those who receive 
conditional legal status will not be eligible for Medicaid, food 
stamps, or any other government services.
  This bill is a sensible and pragmatic compromise that reflects the 
generosity and the goodwill of this country and its citizens, a country 
that opened up its arms to me as a refugee child and to my parents as 
Cuban refugees.
  The DREAM Act also makes economic sense. I have had the opportunity, 
Mr. Speaker, to meet with many DREAM Act students, or Dreamers. One of 
the Dreamers with whom I met is Gaby Pacheco. This remarkable young 
woman's story emphasizes the urgency and the need for this legislation.
  Gaby grew up in my district in south Florida and excelled 
academically. She graduated from high school third in her class and was 
student government president at my alma mater, Miami-Dade College, 
where she received a bachelor's in special ed. She received a 
scholarship to attend a master's program here in D.C., but she had to 
go back to Miami to revive her immigration status.
  What struck me most about Gaby and the other Dreamers with whom I met 
is their optimism and their determination to give back to their 
country. They made it clear, Mr. Speaker, that all they want is an 
opportunity to prove themselves, no more and no less.
  I hope my colleagues will do what is right and help Gaby and the 
other Dreamers get the chance to pursue their American dream in the 
American tradition.
  Mr. POLIS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. I thank the gentlelady.
  I rise to oppose this rule, Mr. Speaker. What happened to openness 
and transparency? We are operating here under same day consideration 
with no opportunity for a motion to recommit. We are in the 11th hour 
of this Congress, and even if we and even if the American people really 
had had a chance to read what was in this bill, it doesn't really 
matter what the seeming requirements are that have been explained here 
because the bill allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive the 
requirements--to waive the requirements.
  Under this bill, any illegal immigrant may apply for an application 
for cancellation of removal and for conditional non-immigrant status. 
DHS may not remove any alien who has a pending application for 
conditional status. This status is valid for 5 years. It can be 
extended by DHS for another 5 years. All the while, the individual will 
be allowed to work in the United States and travel outside of the U.S.
  With every amnesty, we have had a problem with massive fraud. About 
one-fourth of those legalized under the 1986 law received amnesty 
fraudulently. As one former U.S. Citizen and Immigration Service 
employee told us, the system that exists now can't handle the workload 
that exists now. There is a backlog now with 3 million people waiting 
to get their cases decided. What do you think is going to happen when 
we have millions of new cases on top of that that USCIS has to 
investigate?
  The fact is that right now you can go online and you can buy a 
fraudulent document. You can buy a fraudulent diploma for $180, along 
with a fraudulent GED. There is no additional staffing in this bill, no 
funding to actually authenticate it. The additional personnel necessary 
to handle the increase in the number of cases is not in this bill.
  So how do we prevent the type of fraud we saw in 1986? How do we deal 
with the fact that since 1986 we have had three times as many illegal 
immigrants come into the country as a result of passing that amnesty, 
many of them coming in fraudulently?
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Thank you, Congresswoman Foxx.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to say that in my five terms here, this has to 
take the award for the most creatively misleading acronym that I have 
ever seen attached to a bill. This may constitute

[[Page 19322]]

a ``dream'' for a small number of people who choose to disregard or 
disobey the law, but it is in fact a sobering reality for America. It 
is a stark reality for citizens all over the Nation who have obeyed the 
law and to whom this is an absolute affront.
  It is an affront and a stark reality to middle American families who 
are struggling to pay their bills and send their children to college, 
only to find their own sons and daughters bumped aside by illegals in 
the process. It is an affront and a sobering reality to the American 
taxpayers and their children and grandchildren who are going to pay 
this bill to the tune of billions of dollars over the future. It is 
also a reality to the 10 percent of Americans who are unemployed who 
realize that the effect on the infrastructure of America in this bill 
is going to be absolutely negative with respect to Social Security 
benefits, jobs, loans, health care, education and otherwise. I would 
suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that our national infrastructure simply 
can't afford this.
  I respect the sponsors of this bill. In fact, my good friend and 
colleague from Illinois, Congressman Gutierrez, is one of the principal 
movers of this bill. I respect the sincerity of the sponsors. But this 
is very bad public policy for America, and I would suggest to you that 
the long-run benefits are far overwhelmed and overrun by what it is 
going to cost the American taxpayer and what it is going to cost us who 
believe in the rule of law.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. POLIS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I really appreciate all of my 
colleagues coming over and making the points that they made. I want to 
tie into Mr. Johnson's comments, particularly about the rule of law.
  You know, we are all, again, sympathetic to the young people who find 
themselves here illegally, having been brought here by their parents. 
We are sympathetic to that. But their parents left a place that was not 
as good a place to live as the United States, and the foundation of 
what makes us a great country is the rule of law. And if we let the 
rule of law be undermined, then we will be no better than the places 
that they have escaped from.
  I agree with Mr. Johnson, also, that this bill is very misleading. I 
would like to point out something that's been said by the proponents of 
this bill that isn't accurate.
  DREAM Act supporters would have you believe illegal aliens who don't 
go to college will earn citizenship through service in the United 
States Armed Forces. However, we already have legislation that will 
allow that to happen. We don't need the DREAM Act to do that, Mr. 
Speaker. If people want to enroll in the Armed Forces, they generally 
can become naturalized citizens through expedited processing, often 
obtaining their citizenship in 6 months. So we don't need the DREAM Act 
for that.
  Mr. Speaker, again, as my colleagues have pointed out, this bill has 
not been properly reviewed by any of the five House committees with 
jurisdiction. This abuse of regular order makes it impossible for 
Members of Congress and their constituents to review properly and 
consider legislation prior to a vote. Making substantial changes to our 
laws through proposals which have not been appropriately vetted and 
forcing a vote in a lame duck session are both reckless and 
irresponsible.
  Adding insult to injury, earlier today the House passed a martial law 
rule. Under martial law, the Democrat majority can bring up any bill at 
any time through December 18 with very little notice. This practice not 
only perpetuates the chaos that's consumed the Democrat majority, but 
is a colossal disservice to the people we are elected to serve.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to deal with the people who are here illegally, 
and most of us want to do that, but this is not the way to do it. We 
need to secure our borders. And once we secure the borders, then we can 
deal with all the other issues related to those who are here illegally.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
rule, vote ``no'' on the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, those who oppose the DREAM Act support the 
ongoing presence of over 500,000 more illegal immigrants within our 
borders. Opponents of the DREAM Act make a travesty of the rule of law 
and facilitate the ongoing presence of undocumented foreign nationals 
inside our country which so frustrates our States and cities.
  Let me end by simply relating this to common sense. If you are pulled 
over for a speeding ticket and you have a child in a car seat next to 
you, that 2-year-old doesn't get a speeding ticket. If there is a bank 
robber who robs it with a toddler on their back, that toddler doesn't 
spend a life in prison.
  I will end with a quote from Deuteronomy 24:16: ``Fathers shall not 
be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for 
their fathers' sins.''
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Capuano). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. 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, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________