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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1756 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1756.

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 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 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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. CASTOR of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I have no additional speakers and reserve the balance of my time to allow the gentlelady to close.

I have already reserved the balance of my time for you to close. I have no further requests for time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me 1 minute. I am about to lose my magic 1 minute, and I lament that fact, but it is a fact. But I have not lost it yet.

I am going to use that minute to speak for children who didn't break the law, who had no concept of violating laws. Their parents brought them here like millions of other children who now live in America, and parents who live in America. They were Irish, they were Polish, they were German, they were Asian, they were South Americans, they were Africans. Their parents brought them to this country, and they grew up in this country and they thought to themselves, I am proud to be an American. And I am sure they sing with Lee Greenwood, I am proud to stand up next to you. And they stand next to us almost every day. We may not know who they are, but they go to school, they serve in our Armed Forces. They participate, and they pay taxes. Some of them are far too young to do that. Some of them know no country except the United States of America. And they feel blessed.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that immigration is an issue that divides many of us in this House. It is an issue that arouses passion. But the test of governing responsibly is whether even in the face of those divisions we can come together to make progress on the basis of a principle that ought to be universal.

I said to my caucus tonight that I had been chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe for 10 years and served on that commission for almost 20. That commission, as some of you know, is charged with overseeing the implementation of the Helsinki Final Act. The Helsinki Final Act, of course, was signed by President Ford in the summer of 1975. What that act tried to accomplish was a universal understanding of human rights and how nations treated their own citizens, and how we would look to those nations and not say it is simply their business, because if they abused their citizens, it was felt after World War II, that they might soon abuse other citizens not within their borders.

And so we said we are our brother's keeper. We do need to make sure that people throughout this world are treated equally. And I have traveled to many countries behind the Iron Curtain over and over and over with my good friend Frank Wolf and others. Mr. Smith from New Jersey, particularly. We went to those countries and said, Treat people fairly.

As I was thinking about this impending debate, I thought to myself, what if some other country were taking children who had grown up, gone to school, were in the military, were going to college, and we were kicking them out of the country because their parents had come from another land. Yes, those parents broke the law, and this is not about excusing breaking the law. These children are not culpable. These young people came here because as all of us went anywhere. I am in Maryland. Why am I a Maryland citizen? I am a Maryland citizen because my stepfather was in the United States Air Force and the United States Air Force transferred him to Andrews Air Force base, and so we moved to Maryland, not because I chose to move to Maryland but because my stepfather and mother moved to Maryland, and they brought me with them. That is who we are talking about. That is who we are talking about.

One of those principles is I believe that individuals who came to this country as undocumented minors and have lived their lives in America should not suffer because of the actions over which they had no control that brought them to the United States. We all universally adopt that principle. No one holds children culpable for the wrongdoing of their parents unless somehow those children are involved themselves in the perpetration of wrongdoing. So this principle is well known to all of us and ought to be followed. That is the idea behind this legislation.

We talk about the American Dream. We have a statue in the harbor in New York. She has a light that she lifts to all the world. And we say:

Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me.

And America says to the world: I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

We are the keepers of the golden door.

When the ambassador from Ireland, and we have many Irish among us, came and spoke, one of the things he said is: Deal with this issue. Deal with it because there are Irish among us who perhaps came because their parents saw opportunity at a time of great strife in their land and came to America.

My father came at the age of 32 in 1934 from Denmark to seek opportunity in this country. There are so many of us among this group of 435 who could give similar stories. Our parents came here to seek opportunity. Some came, and our grandparents came, when there was no significant control on their coming here. As immigration has grown, we have had to rightfully make restrictions. And I am one who believes that we need to know who comes into the United States of America.

Our choice tonight is between allowing those young people to live their lives in the shadows of America or ensuring that those who want to serve our country and contribute to our economy can stay in the country that is their home. They perceive it to be their home.

They were children in school, in our neighborhoods, in our boys' and girls' clubs, who played on our athletic fields, and who think of themselves as Americans.

For those young people who have been in our country for 5 continuous years before the enactment of this bill, this is not an inducement to come here; this is not an inducement for somebody to bring their children here. This is to say to those children who are here: We are going to incorporate you if you play by the rules in an opportunity, in this land that we call the land of opportunity.

The DREAM Act provides for 6 years of conditional legal status but only if they have completed high school or a GED during those years. Applicants must finish 2 years of college or serve 2 years in the military and must not commit any crime. We are not going to allow wrongdoers. These are people who are playing by the rules; and if they meet those requirements, they will be able to earn permanent residence and be allowed to apply for citizenship.

Now, understand again that these are young people who broke no law. These are young people who had no intent to break the law. These are young people who have played by the rules, who have graduated from high school, who have gotten GEDs or who are about to do so in order to qualify. In a competitive world, America's openness to immigration is one, frankly, of its strengths, not of its weaknesses. The beneficiaries of the DREAM Act are the kind of new Americans we want-- young people who speak English, who abide by the law and value education, and in many cases, who are willing to risk their lives for America as members of the Armed Forces.

Our military understands the value of a new pool of motivated young men and women committed to serving their country. Clifford Stanley, the Defense Undersecretary in charge of personnel, said that failing to pass this legislation would be, in his words, ``unconscionable.''

Economists also understand the value of these immigrants. A UCLA study found that their income will reach as high as $3.6 trillion over the course of their lives. They're very young now, so that may be 70 or 80 years, which is a long time; but it's an indication of their willingness, as it is of the millions and millions of immigrants throughout our history, to add to the value of America--a Nation, we call ourselves, of immigrants like my father. That's why the DREAM Act is

in keeping with the principles that have made America strong and so dynamic.

Some of you may know Michael Gerson personally. He was George Bush's speechwriter. I hope you had the opportunity to read the column that appeared just two days ago. If you didn't, let me quote from it.

``It is a principle of democratic capitalism . . . that ambitious human beings are not just mouths but hands and brains. They are a resource--the main source of future wealth.''

He urged his party, his Republican Party, to reach out in this instance of which we are not talking about forgiving wrongdoing to young people who have not done anything wrong. Let us stress that over and over. I urge my colleagues to take advantage of that resource, to do what is both in America's interest and in keeping with America's fairness.

Some of you know Jeb Bush. I don't know Jeb Bush personally; but Governor Bush--the Governor of Florida twice--has been mentioned as a possible Presidential candidate.

``I think politicians,'' those of us who serve in public office, ``should be supporting the DREAM Act,'' said Governor Bush. ``I think it's a good policy. I think the military is a most impressive and important institution in this country.'' Those who serve and those who are willing to serve should be given the opportunity--again, not speaking of wrongdoers.

I hope all of my colleagues hear this and all who are listening. Michael Gerson is George Bush's speechwriter. He says at another point in this article, ``It would be difficult to define a more sympathetic group of potential Americans; and the choice here is not between the presence of these young immigrants and their absence. No one is proposing the mass deportation of this particular group.'' These are children who have done nothing wrong and who would be the last on the target lists of even the most enthusiastic immigration restrictionists. In the words of Michael Gerson, ``The actual choice is between allowing these young men and women to develop their talents and serve in the military or not.''

Ladies and gentlemen, I urge my colleagues: Let us join that Lady in the harbor, who lifts her lamp beside this golden door, and understand why the millions and millions and millions and millions of people came from across this Earth to seek opportunity in this great and generous land. Let us reflect that tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill. The DREAM Act is a nightmare for the American people. It insults American workers, American taxpayers, and anyone who believes in the rule of law. How can we consider amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants when just last Friday, the Department of Labor reported that unemployment in America jumped up to 9.8 percent? This is the 19th straight month, a new record where the jobless rate has stayed above 9 percent.

The American people want us to focus on creating jobs and getting Americans back to work. Instead, the Democrats have brought the DREAM Act to the floor. This bill prevents Americans from getting jobs since millions of illegal immigrants will become eligible to work legally in the United States. American workers should not have to compete with illegal workers for scarce jobs.

Over 27 million Americans are out of work, have given up looking for work, or are underemployed. The percent of Hispanics out of work last month rose to 13 percent, and the unemployment rate for black Americans has hit 16 percent. Don't the Democrats know this? Are they listening to the voters? Do they care? This bill proves that there is a total disconnect between the Democratic Party and the American people.

The majority has brought this bill to the floor without holding any hearings on its impact and without committee approval, so Members don't know how the bill would work or not work. In fact, the text we are considering tonight was only introduced last night.

As usual under the Democratic regime, no amendments are allowed. They have even eliminated the one motion Republicans are supposedly guaranteed as a way to address the people's concerns, the motion to recommit. What happened to the Democrats' promise to give Americans 24 hours to read the bills? And what happened to their promise of an open and fair process? These and other promises disappeared long before the election, which is another reason the election turned out as it did.

The bill's supporters imply that the DREAM Act only applies to kids in schools. But in reality, the bill applies to illegal immigrants up to the age of 30. Those are pretty old kids. And once these individuals become U.S. citizens, they can petition for their illegal immigrant parents and adult brothers and sisters to be legalize who will bring in others in an endless chain.

According to the Migration Policy Institute, the DREAM Act would mean amnesty for over 2 million illegal immigrants, but that number likely will be higher since many illegal immigrants will fraudulently claim they came here as children or are under 30, and the Federal Government has no way to check whether their claims are true or not. Such massive fraud occurred after the 1986 amnesty for illegal immigrants who claimed that they were agricultural workers. Studies found two-thirds of all applications for the 1986 amnesty were fraudulent. DREAM Act applicants don't even have to comply with the requirements for amnesty set out in the bill. They can get a waiver for hardship at the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security. Under this administration, which favors mass amnesty, we can assume that nearly everyone who applies will get a hardship pass.

The DREAM Act also makes it possible for almost any illegal immigrant to evade the law. Once they file an application, no matter how fraudulent, the Federal Government is prohibited from deporting them. The bill requires that background checks be conducted on the beneficiaries, but it will be almost impossible for the Federal Government to verify whether someone is who they say they are and whether they meet the requirements of the bill. Furthermore, any discussion of amnesty encourages additional illegal immigration. Already at least 1 million illegal immigrants cross our borders each year. The bill will push that number even higher.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill will increase deficits after 2020. And if the health care debate is any indication of how CBO scores bills, then the actual cost of the DREAM Act will, of course, be much higher. And once a DREAM Act beneficiary obtains lawful status, they are automatically exempt from the current 5-year waiting period to receive public welfare benefits, so the cost of welfare benefits will be huge.

We all know that the point of this bill is to give amnesty to anyone who is in the country illegally and who is under 30 years old. Illegal immigrants get amnesty if they have attended college or served in the military. Illegal immigrants get amnesty if they can show hardship if they are sent home. Illegal immigrants get to stay if they just claim to be eligible under this legislation. Illegal immigrants get amnesty if they use fraudulent documents, because the Federal Government has no way to check millions of claims. Illegal immigrants get amnesty even if they have committed crimes, like driving under the influence, passport fraud, and visa fraud. This is a bill that gives amnesty to 2 million or more people in the country illegally. It encourages fraud and more illegal immigration on a massive scale.

There have been no hearings on this bill, no amendments allowed, and those who are opposed only have 30 minutes to discuss this bill. This is a desecration of the democratic process and an insult to Americans who believe in the rule of law. The DREAM Act hurts millions of Americans who have lost their jobs, are underemployed, or are threatened with layoffs. It puts the interests of illegal immigrants ahead of those law-abiding Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to strongly oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), the ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who is the vice-ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who just spoke has a good point. We need to have compassion, but our compassion should be reserved for American workers, and we should put the interests of American workers ahead of the interests of illegal immigrants.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time until the time on both sides is roughly equal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and a former Attorney General of California.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, 1 month ago the American people told Congress to change course, to put the American people first, to generate jobs, and to strengthen the economy. Unfortunately, it seems that some Democrats have learned nothing and forgotten everything about what the American people want.

We are considering major legislation that the American people couldn't read until a few hours ago. The Democrats refused to hold any hearings on this bill, and no amendments have been allowed. It is the result of a closed and undemocratic process.

We all know that the point of this bill is to give amnesty to almost everyone who is in the country illegally and who is under 30. Illegal immigrants get amnesty if they can show hardship if they are sent home. Illegal immigrants can stay if they just claim to be eligible under this legislation. Illegal immigrants get amnesty if they use fraudulent documents because the Federal Government has no way to check millions of claims. Illegal immigrants get amnesty even if they have committed crimes like DUI, document fraud, and visa fraud.

This is a bill that gives amnesty to more than 2 million people who are in the country illegally. It encourages fraud and even more illegal immigration.

Today, Americans face an unemployment rate of 9.8 percent, a new record. That number has now topped 9.5 percent for 16 months, the longest period since the Great Depression. The DREAM Act means more competition for American workers who are in need of those jobs. It puts the interests of illegal immigrants ahead of the interests of American citizens.

I urge my colleagues to put the American people first, and oppose this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1756, I call up the bill (H.R. 5281) to amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify and improve certain provisions relating to the removal of litigation against Federal officers or agencies to Federal courts, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendments thereto, and I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, I have heard so much misinformation about the DREAM Act that I hardly know where to begin. First of all, this is not a new bill. It has existed for a decade. It is a bipartisan bill to address the plight of children who were brought to the United States as undocumented immigrants and grew up here.

And this bill has been introduced in every Congress, starting on May 21, 2001, there was a hearing. The Senate, the other body, heard a hearing on the bill, August 1, it was started out. In 2003, April 19, the bill was reintroduced by our colleague from California (Mr. Berman). On July 31, it was again reintroduced into the Senate. On April 6, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle introduced the bill. November 18, 2005, a Senator from Illinois introduced the bill. I've got two pages of bills. We have had five hearings.

So for anybody to say there hasn't been due process on this bill, I hope they feel gently corrected by the research that my staff has done to make it clear that there has been an extensive legislative history on this bill.

Now, the second thing that I've heard so much about is that the DREAM Act is not very popular. And again, we rushed to our research and we found that the bill is very popular. Most Americans support the DREAM Act. Poll after poll, the majority of Americans approve of the DREAM Act, and there will be more information coming from this.

Now, the next thing that we ought to really settle down and accept as fact is that the DREAM Act will not take jobs from Americans. The reason that is pretty clear is that all the major unions in America support and endorse the DREAM Act, and they're doing it because it's not taking jobs away from their members--AFL, SEIU, UNITE HERE, UAW, NEA, AFT, and others.

So now that we have some of this cleared up, the next thing I would like to point out is that there are requirements. These are not illegals. These are undocumented kids. They didn't commit a criminal act. They thought they were born here to begin with. Their parents brought them here.

Look, the conditions are so, so voluminous. First of all, the only people eligible are children brought here to the United States, and they have to be less than 29 years old to even qualify. They must have lived in the United States at least for 5 years. They must have graduated from an American high school or be admitted to an institution of higher education, and they must submit biometric information and complete security and law enforcement background checks.

So this is a very rigorous bill. And the last piece of doggerel that I should get rid of is the fact that you can go into the United States military real quickly and be processed as a citizen. Not true. As a matter of fact, you cannot join the military if you are an undocumented person. Yes, that's right.

So now that we've got some of the misunderstanding out of the way, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. PASTOR of Arizona asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to Shelley Berkley of Nevada for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. BERKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from California, Zoe Lofgren, who has worked for years on this legislation, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to explain how the biometric business works to my good friend on the Judiciary Committee.

See, that is fingerprints and eye scans, and the FBI uses it, and they are pretty foolproof.

The people that you are talking about that go back and come forward, these kids, Steve, grew up in America. That is where they started. They haven't been anywhere else. You come here as a kid and you can't qualify. So there are records. They went to school, they did something, they lived somewhere. So there are records, and you don't have to go back to wherever their parents may have come from to do it.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chaka Fattah, for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. FATTAH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois, Danny Davis, for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), chair of the Subcommittee on Courts of the House Judiciary Committee, and also a former magistrate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 45 seconds to a Judiciary Committee member, Dr. Judy Chu of California.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

I would remind my dear friend from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) there is no preference in this bill. They are treated equally. There is not one preference that you can dream of--

Unfortunately, I am not able to.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentlelady from California, Lucille Roybal-Allard.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, Sam Farr.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to Carolyn Maloney of New York for a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from New York, Jose Serrano.

(Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from the Ways and Means Committee, the Honorable Charles Rangel.

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to Chairwoman Nydia Velazquez for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. Velazquez asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Maryland, Donna Edwards.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 45 seconds to the civil rights hero of the Congress, John Lewis.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to the one and only majority leader of the House, Steny Hoyer of Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Illinois, Luis Gutierrez. He has worked on this issue, not just on the DREAM Act but on the whole question of immigration, with great skill and knowledge.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from California, Grace Napolitano, for a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. NAPOLITANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York, Gregory Meeks.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York, Yvette Clarke.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. HONDA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I am pleased at this time to yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the gentlelady from California, Ms. Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to Barbara Lee of Oakland, California.

Mr. Speaker, Howard Berman is not only the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee; he is the second ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I yield him the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for giving us this opportunity this evening to come to the floor of the House on behalf of many children in America.

It is one of those evenings when we can associate ourselves very directly with the aspirations of our Founding Fathers. How blessed we were at the beginning of our country, even before our country began, that these brave and courageous people stood up for independence for our country. And when they established our country, they designed the great seal of the country and it said, ``Novus Ordo Seclorum,'' a new order for the ages. How confident they were, how optimistic they were. No country in the history of the world had ever had founders founding on a new principle of equality of people and freedom, separating themselves from a great military power by winning independence

and saying this was about a new order for the future. And they could say that with confidence because they had a commitment to make the future better from one generation to the next.

That became known as the American Dream, eventually, and people flocked to our shores to be part of the American Dream. And when they came, they brought their hopes, their aspirations, their determination, their optimism for a better future for their families and for the next generation. And in coming here, these newcomers--at that time, a couple hundred of years ago--and to this day, by coming with that optimism and hope and commitment to a better future for the next generation, they made America more American.

And so tonight we have an opportunity to identify with the aspirations of our Founders. And we know that if we are going to have a better future for our country, it is important for us to recognize the children who are here. They have come from every continent in the world, from Europe, from Asia, from Australia, from Latin America. My colleague, Congresswoman Clarke, talked about children coming from the Caribbean. A lot of attention is paid to those coming from Latin America, but they have come from all over the world, and many of them to this day do not know what their legal status is. Some find out in a most unfortunate way when ICE shows up at their door to say, You weren't born here, because their parents may not have told them that.

But their identity is all American. Some of them don't even speak the language of the country of origin of their parents. So many of them come here with this great patriotism. Their families come with this great patriotism. Many of these young people serve in the military, so they strengthen our national security. Secretary Gates has said, The DREAM Act represents an opportunity to expand the recruitment and readiness of our armed services. That's what the Secretary of Defense said. We all know that the competitiveness of America depends on innovation, and innovation begins in the classroom. And these young people have an array of skills and talent, whether they're in the military, whether they're in college, whether they go to graduate school. And we know that many of them cannot reach their professional aspirations because that is when they bump into the fact that they are not fully documented.

If you have ever been to a DREAM Act occasion, when young people come together and speak about their love for America, you will hear anthems of patriotism that, again, would make you so very, very proud in how it echoes what our Founders had in mind. So we have an opportunity tonight to solve a problem, solve a problem for these young people, to help solve problems for our military and our national security, to help solve problems about innovation and education and making our country stronger economically as well as militarily.

This bill does not cost money. In fact, it sends money back to the Treasury, about over $2.5 billion. But as studies show, there will be hundreds of billions of dollars that will be paid in taxes by these young people when they reach their full aspirations.

This act is about Pedro Ramirez, the student government president at California State University Fresno. He was brought here when he was 3 years old and was unaware of his lack of citizenship until he was a senior in high school. In the midst of the controversy of his status, he reminded us, the DREAM Act itself symbolizes what it is to be an American. It's about equality. It's about opportunity. It's about the future.

Young people like Pedro and so many others like him represent the best reasons to pass the DREAM Act. We always think in numbers. Think of these individual young people and how they identify with America. They have no other identity in many cases. They want to participate in our Nation's future. They want to help build it. They want to use their degrees and their skills to help build something better for the next generation, and that's what our Founders had in mind when they said, Novus Ordo Seclorum, a new order. It's on the dollar bill. In case you have a dollar in your pocket, you can take out The Great Seal of the United States, ``Novus Ordo Seclorum,'' with that confidence, later to be called the American Dream.

We owe it to our Founders, and we owe it to these young people, we owe it to the future to cast a vote for a bill that makes America more American. And I want to thank Mr. Conyers. I want to thank Howard Berman, the author of this legislation; Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren, also on the Judiciary Committee; certainly Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, chair of the Hispanic Caucus; Congressman Xavier Becerra, part of the House leadership; Luis Gutierrez; Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard; and the entire Congressional Hispanic Caucus. But it is not confined to the Hispanic Caucus, as Representative Clarke has said. This is about kids from all over the world.

And as Steny said earlier, when the Prime Minister of Ireland came here and spoke, and when we attended the festivities each year surrounding the visit of the Taoiseach, they always talk about immigration. They always talk about this issue. This is one piece of it.

And I know the gentleman got up and said he couldn't be for this because it didn't have a motion to recommit. This isn't about a motion to recommit. This is about a commitment to our future. This is about a recognition of what these young people can mean for our country. And so I hope that that recognition will result in a very positive vote, and I hope a bipartisan vote in support of making the future better for the next generation, which is the strength of our great country. Thank you all, and please vote ``aye'' on the legislation.