Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6) to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment of status of certain aliens, and for other purposes.

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

I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019.

Last week, I went to El Paso to see what was going on on our southern border. I can tell my colleagues today that our border is an utter disaster.

Last month, Customs and Border Protection apprehended an average of 4,500 people every day. During the first 7 months of the fiscal year, CBP has apprehended more individuals than in any full fiscal year since 2009.

While I was in El Paso, a single group of more than 1,000 aliens illegally walked across the border from Juarez. A group of migrants the size of a high school strolled right into downtown El Paso and surrendered to Border Patrol. I personally witnessed hundreds of others in smaller groups do the same thing.

The number of family unit members and unaccompanied alien minors apprehended in April set records, and May numbers eclipsed those records. The number of single-adult apprehensions has now reached a 5- year high.

So far this year, Border Patrol has encountered over 180 large groups, those with over 100 people. With so many people entering illegally, it is no wonder Border Patrol processing centers are far beyond capacity and ICE detention facilities are full.

Even the NGOs providing shelter and other aid to migrants are completely overwhelmed by the unending surge of people who have learned we are rewarding those who break our laws and endangering vulnerable men, women, and children in the process.

Perhaps the worst part of this humanitarian crisis is the toll it takes on children. CBP has identified over 3,000 potentially fraudulent family units arriving at the border. As unbelievable as it may sound, aliens admitted that they have ``borrowed,'' ``rented,'' or ``bought,'' yes, ``bought'' a child because they know showing up with a child at the border all but guarantees release into America's interior.

It is a crisis. One of the overworked, overwhelmed agents that I met last week told me, after I thanked him for doing his work and being there, he looked at me and he said: ``I'm doing my job; now y'all go do yours.''

I took that to heart. I believe that the surge of migrants can be all but ended by enacting a legislation to fix the Flores settlement, which the Obama administration agreed with me on; amend the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and raise the credible fear standard of asylum.

But what are my Democratic colleagues going to do to address this situation? Nothing.

Democrats have the chance to help the overworked DHS heroes, overwhelmed NGOs, and the American people who believe in our country's sovereignty.

Sadly, the Democrats are making us consider a bill that will worsen, give a green light to the border crisis, incentivizing more people to cross our borders illegally in hopes of getting a piece of the amnesty pie.

No doubt, at this very minute, the smuggling cartels are getting the word out--just as we heard from migrants walking across our border, they were told it's open--that there's availability, to come across. They are telling them Congress is going to legalize millions. Just get there. They will do it for you.

I have repeatedly implored my committee chairman to give us a bill legalizing some of the illegal immigrant population and include enforcement measures to secure our border and enforce our laws inside our country.

Sadly, Democrats refuse. They had a chance to show they are serious about an immigration solution for DACA recipients and perhaps even for the Dreamers they have talked about protecting for years. Instead, today, we are considering a political messaging bill. The message is that America won't enforce its laws or protect its people.

H.R. 6 provides a special path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants as well as hundreds of thousands of TPS and DED, or deferred enforced departure, recipients. It places the interests of those who have violated our laws before those people who have waited patiently for green cards to become available. Because the bill provides that same path to some legal nonimmigrants and even people living outside America, the number of potential beneficiaries is completely unknown.

H.R. 6 allows criminal aliens and those who have committed immigration fraud to receive green cards. It rewards with green cards and eventual citizenship the parents who knowingly brought children to the U.S. illegally. It incentives fraud through lax documentation requirements, allowing affidavits to show compliance with some of those requirements and allowing people to withdraw an application at any time without prejudice.

H.R. 6 pretends to prevent alien gang members from getting green cards, but the prohibition is so deliberately narrow, it is virtually unworkable.

H.R. 6 actually provides U.S. taxpayer funds to NGOs, in the form of grant programs, to help illegal aliens apply for green cards.

It has been said by my colleagues across the aisle to not worry, that the Department of Homeland Security Secretary will have the nondelegable ability to review these. I am not sure what my colleagues across the aisle believe the Secretary does all day except review these applications. It is the most amazing thought and statement I have ever heard.

If enacted, H.R. 6 would overwhelm U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to the point where adjudicators will be pulled off of processing legal immigration benefits to process the millions of applications resulting from this bill. There will be several million applications for amnesty because H.R. 6 has no consequence for filing a false or frivolous application.

Hear me clearly: A person could file a false or frivolous application, and there is no consequence to it.

CBO has estimated that over the 2020 to 2029 period, the two bills combined to make H.R. 6 would cost $26.3 billion and $8.3 billion respectively, and that is, frankly, I believe, an underestimate.

As evidenced by the two floor votes last year, Republicans want to provide legal status for DACA recipients. We want to do it the right way, to minimize fraud, to ensure criminals cannot get legal status, and to bolster border security. Without these commonsense measures and compassionate measures, we will find ourselves repeating this conversation a few years from now.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 6 does none of these things, so I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Madam Speaker, just quickly, if their criminality keeps them simply ineligible, then why does the bill have an entire section devoted to the Secretary's provisional authority of those who conduct a public safety determination?

By the way, again, going to the Secretary of Homeland Security, I am not sure what they believe that person does, but it is definitely not to review these every day.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship.

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), another member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), another committee member.

Madam Speaker, I would remind the gentlewoman from Texas that, as Americans, we also have rule of law. We stand for that and have wanted to fix the DACA situation, not just give a green light to continue a problem on the border that we are continually seeing.

There are problems with this bill. It is not a perfect bill and doesn't fit, in many ways. We are pointing that out. The pride that we take in that is not that we are seeing something broken. It is the pride that we need to fix something in this. We want to see these recipients be here and be able to participate in a legal fashion.

The legal immigration system is being overwhelmed by the illegal population coming across, which we are not fixing, and don't say that we are because we are not. Nothing has come to this floor, and it happens every day.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline), another member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman, the speaker, Mr. Cicilline. I agree with him that we need to fix this, but this is not the way to fix this. There is a bipartisan way to fix this, and this simply just gives a green light.

It is a powerful symbol. This bill is a very powerful symbol to those who want to come here and know that there will be no consequence for coming and will continue to overload our border. That is the symbolism that comes from this bill today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who is a member of our committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the majority leader coming down. It is amazing to me, though, that as we come down and talk about this bill, if there really was a desire to have a bipartisan bill, then maybe we would have brought the bill that actually did get close, as the gentleman did bring up last Congress, and actually ask some of those cosponsors on the Republican side who were sponsoring it last time to be a part, who have said they have been froze out.

Let's face reality. So spare me the discussion on getting a bipartisan bill and the disdain for it and saying that this bill actually helps.

This is a bill written for a promise, as was just said. Let's, at least, be honest about why it was written and the fact that it will not help the situation on the border and, frankly, is not going to help us get a bill passed, because this will not pass because, as the President has said, he wants to see some security attached to this, so that we have a safe and secure legal immigration system.

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with him. Spare me those discussions because that didn't happen here, as is painfully obvious.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Florida an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

Mr. Speaker, I inquire how much time is remaining for both sides.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, derogatory statements toward the President; also, that was impugning the integrity of the President. I think that is much more beyond what was actually warned about, and I would ask the Parliamentarian for a ruling on that.

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary inquiry would say that that statement, as quoted, ``a racist rant'' is an attack on the President, implying he is a racist. Is that not true? Which is contrary--

Mr. Speaker, is it not true that this House is run on parliamentary language that is not consistent with what was just used?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia continues that parliamentary inquiry, then, because it is an issue that needs to be addressed. It should not have been said on this floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Now, it may not matter to anyone else here, but the Members who wear pins understand that parliamentary language is important and what rules this floor. ``Xenophobic'' is another word being used on this floor about the President's character. Please advise how that is parliamentary language.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of time, and I appreciate the gentlewoman (Ms. Lofgren) and the ability to close.

Mr. Speaker, there is a saying sometimes, and it is ``everything has been said, just not everybody has said it.'' I think we sort of went through that today.

But some of the things that have been said today need to be brought out and, I think, continue to be brought out, and it may be that we don't talk about them.

What we have found here is that, today, my colleagues clearly do not care--as we have seen--about rule of law. They don't even seem to care about the rules of the House today, and they had to actually waive the paygo rules in order to bring this bill to the floor.

The estimate on this was $35 billion. They have waived that. They said: We don't care. We have got a bill that is going nowhere, a bill that is not going to be signed. So I guess, just to make our point, we are just going to waive that.

But let's talk a little bit about some of the other stuff that is not in this bill, that is not with DACA recipients, or DACA, or the Dreamers--however, it is described today--that many of us would like to have seen.

I think it was very telling when the majority leader came down here and brought up a bill which I acknowledged was very close to coming bipartisanly and passing last year, but didn't. If you wanted a bipartisan bill, that is where you would have started, and you would have had an opportunity to actually then put something with it with security and actually get something passed.

But that was not what my friends across the aisle wanted. They wanted, it seems to me, a political bill, a statement bill, something that will not get passed but simply continue to use this population, seemingly, in a way that furthers political goals and not a real solution.

An interesting part of this bill which has not been talked about as much--it has been mentioned, but it also needs to be recognized. We have a serious issue with this temporary protected status, TPS. There is no T anymore. T is not available in this. Temporary does exist.

When we talk about this--and it is supposed to be for those who are in dire need. I agree with the concept of TPS, that it should be there for those areas and times when we need to allow people to come in, and that should be a part, and it should not be natural disasters and other things. But I want you to think for just a second--and this was actually brought out in Rules last night by my colleague from California, whom I respect highly about this.

But understand, the TPS was granted to El Salvador in March 2001; Haiti, 2010; Honduras, 1999--these were earthquakes, hurricanes--Nepal, 2015, an earthquake; Hurricane Mitch in 1999, with Nicaragua. Others were armed conflicts, which we can understand.

But temporary after a hurricane, we are looking at 15, almost 20 years and we are still dealing with this, because all we did in this body and all the administration did was simply kick the can down the road.

I feel for those who came here on a temporary status but did not go home, and then they got left. Yes, this has become their home because we did not obey the law.

Now, there has been a lot said also about--and there is no need to continue on it because there is the ability for criminal elements to get green cards--the discussion about having the Secretary of Homeland Security being able to take these up; and an individual, a nondelegable authority, to actually take these individual items up is a farce. They don't have that time or ability.

They will never get that far because, actually, amazingly, the Department of Homeland Security Secretary is a busy person, both female or male. Whoever serves in it, under Republican or Democrat, does not have time to do this. So the very narrow exemption will never get used. So, yes, it does open that possibility up.

But I think the interesting thing here is, it was shown by some of the discussion in this debate, it was beyond the political rhetoric of a bill that is going nowhere and a bill that should and could find solutions.

It goes back to the problem that we see right now that this is, frankly, another green light to those who want to come here seeking freedom from the place that they currently are, which I sympathize with. I understand. But either we have a way to get into our country legally or we don't. Either we

have a way that you should come properly to our country or we don't.

It is not an in-between item here. It is not saying that we want you to come but, yet, at the same point, don't worry about our rules and laws if you can come.

As I said earlier in my statement today, they are borrowing, renting, and begging for children to walk across the border because they know that, once they do, they are free. Within 48 to 72 hours, they can get to an NGO and be on a plane somewhere, even when we have found over 3,000 cases of fraudulent, unaccompanied minors and family units. But we don't address that here.

In other words, we don't talk about what is happening in combination with this, which many of us could have actually gotten on board with. We simply put another green light, Mr. Speaker, on the fact that we are not helping.

If either side, both Republicans or Democrats, could look at a Border Patrol agent or an ICE agent or one who works in our immigration and port authority and actually look at them and tell them while they are doing their job upholding the law, which is all they can do--it is not their job to make laws. That is this body's job: to make laws or to help them or to send them aid.

Then how can we look them in the eye when they are staying 15 and 20 hours away from their families each day, when their own families are falling apart, because we are overcrowding our Border Patrol offices because they can't hide them?

How do we explain to those who come here properly on asylum from Cuba and other places where they have been told, as one told me, looked at me and said: ``If I was to go back to Cuba, they would disappear me,'' how can we sit there and look at them while they are held for 60 or 90 days or longer, while unaccompanied family members and unaccompanied minors and family units are being passed over within 24 to 48 hours as they are sitting there legitimately trying to get into this country through an honest asylum claim?

But we sit them there to the side. We don't want to discuss them. We want to make a political statement today.

So this will be a partisan vote. There will be some bipartisan vote. There may be some who will vote for it, and that is okay. But at the end of the day, we are not getting what we asked for. We are not getting what we wanted. If we did, we probably would have taken the bill from last Congress. They did have bipartisan votes, what the majority leader spoke of. But that is not what we did.

Until we get serious about this issue, until we get serious about wanting to fix this and not simply use debate time to bash the administration or the President and to find solutions here, then we will continue down this path.

And you can celebrate if you pass this--which you will because the majority has the numbers--but how hollow a celebration is something when you look and say: This will not do anything because this will not become law.

The powerful symbol spoken of by one of my colleagues earlier is this. The powerful symbol is not that you can pass a bill on the floor that has nothing of support from either side or actually has the hope of becoming law, or giving false hope to anyone who is watching today, what actually has the ability to do is that why would we do this if we are not dealing with the issues that we have as we go forward? Why would we take the flaws in this bill, bringing it to the floor in a closed rule?

Why? Because I believe the majority didn't want to have to deal with the honest problems in this bill with amendments, so they closed the rule. They didn't want it to happen.

Mr. Speaker, but as this is our time, this our place, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise to support the underlying bill and the rule that is presently before us.

As I do so, let me thank my colleague on the Judiciary Committee. We have served for any number of years, and Congresswoman Lofgren has been on the front lines of reason and trying to address the question of comprehensive immigration reform.

Together, respectively, and parallel to each other, we have introduced, over and over again, comprehensive immigration reform. We have watched it be refuted and rebutted by those who really could have helped us solve even the problem of the surge that we are seeing crossing the border today.

Let me, as well, thank Madam Speaker, who has been engaged in a very important way, and my friend and colleague Lucille Roybal-Allard, who has clearly been leading on this issue and many others. Let me thank the Judiciary Committee as well, where we came together as a team.

Let me reinforce what has been said over and over again, and that is that Dreamers are Americans. Those who

are beneficiaries of TPS, they have been here 20 to 30 years because of the difficulty of their home countries. They have, likewise, shown themselves to love this country.

There was a period of time when Dreamers had joined in and went to the Iraq war. They were not citizens, but they went there because they loved this country so much. They came as a child, and they realized the wonderment of this country.

It is important to convince those who believe that we are opening the doors and that we are reckless. Let me be very clear. Besides the Immigration and Nationality Act that is already in existence, there are very clear parameters on dealing with people who are felons or a threat to national security, individuals who have committed DUIs, those who have misdemeanors. There are clear parameters of ensuring that the Nation is protected. But, as well, there is dignity and human rights.

There is also the question of what investment in dollars you will lose, what you will throw away, $460 billion from the national GDP over the decade from 685,000 workers--in my own State, $8 billion annually in the State GDP.

Immigrants are in the fabric of our society. We are immigrant and nonimmigrant. All of us have come from that history. Mine is different, having been brought here by, meaning those who are of African American heritage, as slaves.

386,300 immigrants are eligible under the American Dream and Promise Act, and 120,000 live in Harris County.

But this is the story that I want to tell and dwell on. A Dreamer died trying to rescue Hurricane Harvey victims. That is Alonso Guillen, who came to help those in the darkest moments of our region, during Hurricane Harvey, the greatest and most significant disaster.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her courtesy.

He came from Lufkin, Texas. He loved Texas football and country music. He had fundraisers for any manner of needs in his area.

When he saw the devastation and the people in water in Harris County, and we were in 51 trillion gallons of water, he came, with a little boat and a friend. He didn't ask whether they were immigrant or nonimmigrant, Dreamer or non-Dreamer, what their background was. As they were in the water, as they were on their rooftops, as they were desperate without food, he came.

Tragically, his family had come to, ultimately, find him floating in the water, when his boat had toppled and, we believe, had been impacted by the wires in the water.

This is the face of Dreamers. This is the face of those who would benefit from temporary protective status coming from Nepal, from El Salvador, and from countries that are under major devastation.

Many times, there is crime in America, and I understand that. But people don't imagine what it is to flee from the natural disasters that these individuals have fled from, to have no relief from the government, and to compound that with the violence that is going on, knowing so much violence.

I stand here today to ask for rational thought. With a multitude of organizations, I want to raise up one, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It doesn't come lightly to this question. I would argue that, had we passed comprehensive immigration reform 10 years ago, 15 years ago, the question of surging across the border would not be an issue.

Let me also be clear that we have built barriers across the border for more than a decade. I remember giving huge sums of money to ensure it, in certain spaces.

What we are saying now is that that is not a sole solution. The solution is regularizing individuals with the safeguards of this legislation.

I would hope my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, as Americans, understand that this Nation was built with the sweat and tears and love of immigrants. Every American, except Native Americans, can point to coming from somewhere else, no matter what condition they were in when they came.

I ask our colleagues to support this legislation, H.R. 6, because it is the American thing to do.

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary and on Homeland Security, and a representative of a state on the southern border, I rise in strong support of the rule governing debate of H.R. 6, the ``American Dream and Promise Act of 2019,'' and the underlying legislation.

The American Dream and Promise Act of 2019 establishes a roadmap to U.S. citizenship for (1) immigrant youth and (2) current or potential holders of (a) temporary protected status (TPS) or (b) deferred enforced departure (DED).

Ensuring a path to earned citizenship is a non-negotiable principle for me and the sine qua non of meaningful immigration reform legislation.

Indeed, providing a path to earned access to citizenship has been a central feature of every comprehensive immigration reform bill I have co-sponsored or sponsored in the Congress since 2007 when I became Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and introduced the ``Save America Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, (H.R. 1525),'' which I have reintroduced in each succeeding Congress.

Like H.R. 6, Section 501 of my legislation provides a path to earned legalization status to those undocumented immigrants who have resided in the United States for 5 years and meet other eligibility requirements.

Madam Speaker, as we stand today on the precipice of passing the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019, I am thinking of the hundreds of thousands of young immigrants whose lives will be changed for the better by keeping our promise to them, so they can realize their dreams and making America better, stronger, and more prosperous.

And at this moment, I am thinking of Alonso Guillen, an heroic DREAMER who lived in my congressional district, and who came to the United States from Mexico as a child and died when his boat capsized while he was rescuing survivors of the flooding caused by Hurricane Harvey in the Houston area.

That is the type of courage, honor, and commitment to service we are talking when we speak of DREAMERS.

Madam Speaker, Title I of H.R. 6, the Dream Act of 2019, contains provisions regarding relief for immigrant youth.

Title II of the bill, American Promise Act of 2019, contains provisions related to persons eligible Temporary Protected Status (TPS) or Deferred Enforcement Departure; the third and final title contains general provisions that apply to both Titles I & II).

Madam Speaker, I support H.R. 6 because it keeps America's word to the more than 800,000 young people we asked to come out of the shadows and walk proudly and unashamedly as legitimate members of the American community.

The legislation does this by providing conditional permanent resident (CPR) status and a roadmap to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status and, eventually, earned U.S. citizenship for immigrant youth who entered the U.S. before age 18, have four or more years of residency, and graduated from high school (or the equivalent).

H.R. 6 also provides an opportunity to apply for LPR status for people who currently have or who may be eligible for TPS or DED and who have three or more years of residency.

Madam Speaker, individuals who are eligible for protection under the bill have lived in the United States for much of their lives; the average Dreamer came to the United States at the age of 8, while the average TPS- or DED-eligible person arrived in 1997.

Without permanent protections such as those in H.R. 6, these immigrants' and their families' futures in the United States--as well as the fiscal and economic contributions they make--are at risk.

Passing this legislation is the right thing to do and now is the time to do it; in fact, it is long overdue.

I am mindful also Madam Speaker that in addition to helping restore America's reputation as the most welcoming nation on earth, the legislation the House will pass also positions America to better compete and win in the global economy of the 21st century.

According to expert studies, including one by the Center for American Progress, ending deferred action for childhood arrivals would result in a loss of $460.3 billion from the national GDP over the ensuing decade and would remove an estimated 685,000 workers from the nation's economy and workforce at a time when more, not fewer, workers are desperately needed.

And 10 states, including my home state of Texas, would stand to lose more than $8 billion annually in state GDP.

Madam Speaker, immigrants eligible for protection under H.R. 6 are part of Texas's social fabric.

Texas is home to 386,300 immigrants who are eligible for protection under the Dream

and Promise Act, 112,000 of whom reside in Harris County.

These individuals live with 845,300 family members and among those family members, 178,700 are U.S.-born citizen children.

Dreamers in Texas who are eligible for protection under the bill arrived in the United States at the average age of 8.

TPS- and DED-eligible immigrants in Texas who would be eligible for protection under H.R. 6 have on average lived in the United States since 1996.

Immigrants eligible for the Dream and Promise Act own 43,500 homes in Texas and pay $340,500,000 in annual mortgage payments.

Eligible immigrants in Texas and their households contribute $2,234,800,000 in federal taxes and $1,265,200,000 in state and local taxes each year.

Annually, these households generate $10,519,000,000 in spending power in Texas and help power the national economy.

Madam Speaker, during general debate on H.R. 6, I will have more to discuss about the salient features of this long overdue legislation that fulfills the American promise that all of its residents who share our values and respect for the Constitution and laws have an opportunity to realize their dreams.

But in the limited time I have now, let me highlight some of the more important provisions of the American Dream and Promise Act.

H.R. 6 helps young persons in the following ways:

1. Extends the length of conditional permanent resident (CPR) status from eight to ten years to give applicants more time to fulfill requirements;

2. Stays the removal of minors who are not yet eligible for relief but may become eligible in the future and who temporarily unenroll from school;

3. Permits people with CPR to obtain legal permanent resident (LPR) status without satisfying the employment, military, or educational tracks if their deportation would cause ``hardship'' to themselves or immediate family members (instead of ``extreme hardship'');

4. Includes apprenticeship programs as a qualifying education to obtain CPR status;

5. Eliminates the costly medical examination for applicants;

6. Establishes a fee ceiling of $495 for immigrant youth applying for CPR status;

7. Clarifies that people with CPR can access professional, commercial, and business licenses;

8. Permits people with CPR who obtain a certificate or credential from an area career and technical education school to obtain LPR status; and

9. Updates the criminal background bars and inadmissibility requirements.

Additionally, H.R. 6 provides LPR status to CPR holders who (1) serve in the uniformed services for two years; (2) complete two years at or obtain a degree from an institution of higher education; or (3) work 75 percent of the time in CPR.

Another important feature of this legislation is that makes it easier for states to provide in-state tuition to immigrant students and establishes that CPR-holders are eligible for federal loans, work study, services, and grants.

For persons with TPS or DED status, the American Dream and Promise Act provides much needed relief.

First, H.R. 6 provides LPR status for people with TPS or DED (and those who were eligible but did not apply) who apply within three years from the date of enactment if they (1) had at least three years of continuous residence (as well as residence since the date required the last time that the person's nation of origin was designated) and (2) were eligible for or had (a) TPS on September 25, 2016, or (b) DED on September 28, 2016.

This protection covers national of 13 countries: El Salvador, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Liberia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

I believe similar protections should be extended to Guatemalan nationals in our country, which is why I will soon reintroduce the ``Continue American Safety Act,'' which extends TPS status to Guatemala and I look forward to working with my colleagues to achieve this outcome.

Second, H.R. 6 classifies people with TPS or DED as inspected and admitted for the purposes of Immigration & Nationality Act (INA) section 245(a), making it easier to obtain LPR status through existing channels (e.g., a family-based petition).

Third, H.R. 6 stays the removal or deportation of an a individual while an application is pending.

Fourth, the American Dream and Promise Act establishes a fee ceiling of $1,140 for people with TPS or DED applying for LPR status.

Fifth, the legislation provides greater transparency by requiring the Secretary of the Homeland Security (DHS) to provide an explanation for and report within three days of publishing notice to terminate TPS designation for certain nationals.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 6 is exceptional legislation and a welcome development but is not a substitute for undertaking the comprehensive reform and modernization of the nation's immigration laws supported by the American people.

Only Congress can do that and passage of H.R. 6 shows that this House has the will and is up to the challenge.

Comprehensive immigration reform is desperately needed to ensure that Lady Liberty's lamp remains the symbol of a land that welcomes immigrants to a community of immigrants and does so in a manner that secures our borders and protects our homeland.

Madam Speaker, let us build on the historic legislation that is the American Dream and Promise Act and seize the opportunity to pass legislation that secures our borders, preserves America's character as the most open and welcoming country in the history of the world, and will yield hundreds of billions of dollars in economic growth.

I urge all Members to support the rule governing debate of H.R. 6 and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, today, we have the privilege of voting for the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019. This vote will bring Dreamers, young immigrants who came to the country as children, as well as individuals who have lived here lawfully for years under temporary protected status or deferred enforced departure, another step closer to being fully recognized as American.

Many of us, both inside and outside this room, have been working to advance this legislation for almost two decades. It is hard to believe that 18 years have passed since the Dream Act was first introduced, and 9 years have passed since the House last voted on it.

Yet, despite bipartisan support in Congress as well as the support of almost 90 percent of the American people, we have thus far been unable to get this bill enacted into law.

I am proud to stand here with so many colleagues who worked with determination over the years to bring this bill to the floor, as well as all the young people and their allies who persisted through setbacks and never gave up on their call for lawful permanent residence.

Madam Speaker, our work has paid off. Today, I urge my colleagues to support the American Dream and Promise Act.

In September 2017, President Trump announced the end of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, otherwise known as DACA, which provided temporary relief from removal to approximately 800,000 Dreamers. Over the next few months, the administration announced plans to terminate the TPS designation for six countries, as well as DED for Liberia. These actions have upended the lives of hundreds of thousands of Dreamers and TPS and DED holders.

They have come to the United States in different ways, and they have had different opportunities once they arrived. But today, they are united not only by the passage of time but also by the uncertainty of the future. Congress has the power to bring certainty to their lives by passing this act.

The bill provides a fair and reasonable opportunity for Dreamers to apply for lawful permanent residence with tough eligibility standards and discretion to consider unique situations on a case-by-case basis. The TPS and DED holders must continue to meet the strict eligibility requirements that already apply to them.

Based on comments made earlier during the rules debate, comments that I assume may be repeated during this debate, I feel the need to remind everyone just how tough this bill is.

To begin with, the bill applies criminal bars that apply to any other immigrant seeking admission to the United States. It then adds to current law by disqualifying anyone convicted of any felony or more than two misdemeanors.

On top of that, it authorizes the Secretary to deny individuals who pose a threat to public safety based on a single misdemeanor conviction, a juvenile delinquency adjudication, or proof of gang- related activities.

This is a very tough bill. Anyone who poses a threat to public safety is simply ineligible under this bill.

This legislation should not be controversial. The Dream Act has enjoyed bipartisan support in the past, with many of the same provisions. TPS and DED holders are integral parts of our communities and have been contributing to our economy for years, if not decades.

On this point, I also want to stress the important economic benefits that Dreamers and TPS and DED holders provide to our country.

Immigrants eligible for the American Dream and Promise Act own 215,400 homes in the United States and pay an estimated $2.5 billion in annual mortgage payments. If these individuals were to lose their homes, be deported, and default, it would certainly shock housing markets around the country and cause serious damage to cities, States, and the economy as a whole.

Eligible immigrants and their households currently contribute around $17.4 billion per year in Federal taxes and $9.7 billion per year in State and local taxes.

Annually, these households generate over $75 billion in spending power. That money helps to fuel local economies, creating new jobs and bringing new economic prosperity to everyone living and working with H.R. 6 beneficiaries across the country.

Without this bill, these individuals would lose their status and be kicked out of the workforce, creating a major hole in the American economy.

That may be why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has indicated it may make this bill a key vote for its scoring purposes and why hundreds of major business leaders are urging us to pass this bill in order to grow the economy and bolster our global competitiveness.

We must set aside partisanship and move this bill forward so that Dreamers and long-term TPS and DED recipients can finally have the peace of mind they deserve and so that our country can have the contributions that they are ready to make.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote for the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke), the sponsor of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), the vice chair of the Immigration Subcommittee, and a fierce proponent of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a long-serving member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a member of our Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa), who is a member of our Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). The majority leader has been such a supporter of Dreamers for these many years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia), a valued member of our Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stanton), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Mucarsel-Powell), a member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar), a member of our Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel), a leader in this movement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta), my colleague and neighbor in California.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu), a leader on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Phillips).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my colleague from California (Mrs. Torres).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro), the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), my colleague, the Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct a couple of things that have been said in the course of this debate.

Unfortunately, there are those in our country who try and claim that immigrants are criminals, and that is really incorrect. But for those who have said that this bill was loose for people who have committed serious crimes, it is simply not the case. We have tough restrictions in this bill.

Under the bill, an applicant is disqualified if any one of the following apply:

There is reason to believe the applicant is a national security risk;

The applicant has a felony conviction of any kind other than immigration status related;

The applicant has a single misdemeanor conviction involving moral turpitude with a sentence of more than 6 months, whether or not that has been served;

An applicant has two misdemeanors involving moral turpitude, regardless of sentence;

An applicant has more than two misdemeanors of any kind, excluding offenses that should not bar anyone, like minor traffic offenses; and

The applicant has a single misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence.

A lot has been said, I think, incorrectly, about the provision in the bill that says the Secretary's authority to deny applicants who pose a threat to public safety--and that is our failsafe in this--the Secretary can deny an applicant if he determines, or she, that the applicant poses a current threat to public safety, that somehow that is unworkable. But that is not true.

Let's be clear. Members of Congress are the only ones who can introduce bills and sign letters. But do we do every single aspect of that? Of course not. We have staff who assist us.

That is how that would work in the Department of Homeland Security. The staff would help, and they would prepare something for the Secretary, who would not be able to delegate it. And this is how it has worked in the Immigration and Nationality Act before.

I draw your attention to INA's 236(a), which is the mandatory detention of suspected terrorists at habeas corpus and judicial review. This section provides that this decision cannot be delegated, and yet it is workable because a lot of the staff work is done to present to the Secretary who, himself, must make that decision; similarly, with public law 110-301, the Libyan Claims Resolution Act, and 8 U.S.C. 1522 that provides nondelegable activities.

Now, there has been discussion that somehow the language that we have in the bill about databases means you can't use that evidence. That is simply incorrect.

Mr. Speaker, if we had wanted to prevent the Department of Homeland Security from using or referring to gang databases, we would have said so. The bill would clearly state that DHS could not use, rely on, or refer to gang databases. That is not what the bill says.

The bill says ``it shall not establish disqualifying gang participation.'' It can be evidence, but it can't be the establishment of that fact.

Now, why would that be the case? We value our law enforcement community. They keep us safe. They are hardworking. But these databases are populated by people way beyond law enforcement, people in school police, school security. They can result in people being mistakenly tagged as gang members when they are not.

I will give an example.

There was an audit done of California's gang database, CalGang. When the auditors went through, they found out there were 42 individuals who were under the age of 1 year old who had allegedly self-reported that they were part of a gang. Obviously, that was incorrect. So we would not want to make that the determining factor.

I want to mention a little bit about the comments that were made about DUI. DUI is a very serious matter, and no one wants to see individuals who are threats to public safety obtain relief under this bill.

First, anyone who is convicted by an offense punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of more than 1 year is barred from relief. So anyone who would commit a serious offense is barred.

If you have one conviction for DUI with a suspended license and you knew your license was suspended, you have committed a crime of moral turpitude, because section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act still applies.

Some have said that a single DUI conviction should be enough to disqualify you. Well, we have provided for that as well. If the Secretary finds that you pose a serious public safety threat, he can deny your application.

I will just say this. There are Members of the House of Representatives who have a single DUI. We didn't exile them from a single DUI, and I don't think if someone has turned their life around, we should exile them as well.

Now, I want to talk about the value of this bill.

It is interesting to hear the bill has been jammed, because we have waited for 18 years for this moment to pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, over 400 diverse organizations, associations, and industry leaders support this bill, including United We Dream, NAACP, National Organization for Women, Interfaith Immigration Coalition, United States Chamber of Commerce, and National Education Association.

Yesterday, more than 100 business leaders, including Walmart, Koch Industries, Coca-Cola, Starbucks, and General Motors all came out in support of this bill. They had full-page ads in The New York Times, asking us to please pass this bill.

H.R. 6 is the solution we have been waiting for. Passage of this measure is long overdue. Dreamers and TPS and DED recipients do not have the luxury of time. President Trump terminated DACA. He terminated TPS for six countries. He extended DED only through March 2020.

While the courts have stopped the President on DACA and TPS, these individuals are living on borrowed time.

We can vote on their futures now. To a great extent, we are deciding their fates, and we are also deciding our fates. Are we the America that made us great, who opened our doors to those who wanted to become Americans with us, who understood that those who have done no wrong should not receive punishment? I say that we are.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. More than that, I thank her for the thousands of hours that she has put in over the years in trying to address in a positive, constructive way our broken immigration system and for her leadership in forging a bill that is a step--just a step.

I want to thank Mr. Nadler, the chairman of the committee, for ensuring that this bill came forward.

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here for a few minutes, and I have heard a number of my Republican colleagues bemoaning the fact that we could have done this in a bipartisan fashion and come with up with a much better bill. Many of those folks who said that have

been serving here over the last 8 years in the majority, and we have been pleading with them over those 8 years: Bring us a bill, a bipartisan bill.

Mr. Speaker, as you so well know, you and Mr. Hurd, a Republican from Texas, worked tirelessly in fashioning a bipartisan bill, and the Republicans refused to bring it to the floor; although, in my view it had a majority of votes on this floor.

Indeed, it was about to be petitioned out of the committee and brought to the floor in a process that you can do that without the committee's voting for it. Just short of the 218 votes necessary to do that, the Republican leadership put all sorts of pressure to assure that that bill was not discharged from the committee.

So spare me the crocodile tears about a bipartisan bill. We tried to do a bipartisan bill. The Senate did a bipartisan bill in 2013, and we pleaded for the Republicans to bring it to the floor, a bipartisan Senate bill, and they refused, all the time saying the immigration system was broken. But they refused to fix it.

So, now they come to the floor, bemoaning the fact that a bipartisan bill did not come forward. If they had intended to work on a bipartisan bill, as the majority leader, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, a bipartisan bill would have come forward.

So sad, so unfortunate that that didn't happen.

Mr. Speaker, I want to read something:

``We're going to work something out that's going to make people happy and proud.

``They''--referring to the Dreamers--``got brought here at a very young age''--1, 2, 3 years of age.

``They've worked here. They've gone to school here. Some were good students. Some have wonderful jobs. And they're in never-never land because they don't know what's going to happen.''

Who said that? Donald Trump said it.

When did he say it? After he was elected, but before he was sworn in as President of the United States.

I met with the President, along with a few others, at the White House, and he said to us: ``Send us a bill,'' then he created the problem we are confronting today. And he said: ``Congress, fix it, and I will sign it.''

Well, today, Mr. Speaker, we are fixing it. And I hope that my Republican colleagues would join us and that the President of the United States would sign a bill which will take these folks out of never-never land.

The bill we have on the floor today is called the American Dream and Promise Act--the American dream and American promise.

We lift our lamp beside the golden door. That is what we have said to the world. That dream is to see hard work rewarded with opportunity.

My father came here at the age of 32 in 1934, an immigrant from Denmark. That promise is the commitment of our Founders and every generation since to ensure that this Nation makes that dream a reality for all.

Today, more than a million people who grew up in America don't know any other home, yet they live in fear of being sent to a home they never knew. They live in fear of being deported to countries they never or barely knew.

These Dreamers, these yearners for justice and opportunity, deserve to live without fear. They deserve to access the opportunities of America that they have been helping to build already--a Nation of immigrants, made great by immigrants.

This bill will remove that fear. It will give them the opportunity to stay in the country they know and love and to know their hard work and contributions will give them a chance to make it in America and that they can give back by serving in our military or creating jobs or working in their communities; that they can have a pathway to citizenship, which is in their interest and in the interest of our country.

This bill will keep the promise of our Founders and our forebears, and it will keep the promise of policymakers from both sides of the aisle who agree they should stay, along, I might add, with 86 percent of the American people.

They are American in every sense. They are patriots and dreamers.

President Trump campaigned on a promise to help Dreamers--a promise he broke. It was President Trump who created the crisis we now face by rescinding the DACA program 2 years ago and allowing the Republican- controlled House to stand in the way of a legislative solution.

Now, the Democrat-led House is taking action. With this bill, we proclaim to the Senate and President: Take the advice of the American people. Pass this bill.

For these Dreamers are, in all but a certificate of citizenship, brothers and sisters.

One of them from my district, Gabby Hernandez, is here today, Mr. Speaker, to watch us take this important vote. She arrived in this country from El Salvador at the age of 4. She attended school in Prince George's County, Maryland, which I represent, and she has been studying these last few years to be a social worker and help people in our community.

I hope we can give Dreamers like Gabby reassurance that their country, America, will not abandon them.

In addition, this bill would also allow those who have been on temporary protected status and deferred enforced departure to remain as permanent residents.

One of them has a business in my district. He employs 40 people. Forty families would be affected by his leaving. He has been here for 25 years. He is, in every sense, a member of our community.

These are people who fled a natural disaster and violence and were welcomed into our country as refugees. Here, they have helped build a stronger community and have participated in building our economy.

I am proud to represent a strong community of Liberians in my district, many of whom fled war and disease outbreak and built new lives here. We should not allow them to be uprooted from their homes a second time.

Some of them are here today in the gallery as well.

Let's show them. Let's show them that we stand together with them and cherish their contributions to America.

Whether we are Irish or Danish or Italian or Jews or Poles or Germans, all who came here in great numbers immigrated to this country and have made us great.

This bill is not perfect. No bill is perfect. But it is a step, a very important step, a down payment on fulfilling that promise.

But change happens most often in steps, and today the Democrat-led House is taking that step forward by keeping our promise to Dreamers.

I want to thank Lucille Roybal-Allard, Nydia Velazquez, Yvette Clarke, Jerry Nadler, and--yes, once again--Zoe Lofgren for all the work that they have done to get us to a place where we have a fair bill--not amnesty, a fair bill for America.

I hope my Republican colleagues will join us in voting for this bill. Together, let's send a message of inclusion and acceptance of these Dreamers, whose dreams are the same as ours, whose patriotism is the same as ours, and whose Nation is the same as ours.

Vote ``aye.'' Vote for America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren for yielding and for her extraordinary leadership.

Congresswoman Lofgren has been an immigration lawyer. She has taught immigration law, and she has served now as chair of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship. She was masterful in bringing elements together to make today possible. I commend our distinguished chairman, Mr. Nadler, for his leadership, and Congresswoman Jayapal for making this success possible.

But also, I commend Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard. When we passed this bill on the floor a long time ago, it was her legislation. She is the godmother--they are young godmothers--she is the godmother of this legislation. And I commend Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, who was the chair of the Hispanic Caucus when we passed the bill the first time; Congresswoman Yvette Clarke, who has been a champion on this issue; Congresswoman Judy Chu, the chair of her caucus; Congresswoman Karen Bass of her caucus; and Congressman Joaquin Castro of the Hispanic Caucus--inside maneuvering, but the outside mobilization is what made today possible.

The stories of the Dreamers elevated this issue, their stories told with such dignity and patriotism for our country, the mobilization that they evoked from their stories for other people to take up their cause and their case, because it is so important to America. And today, we are not only honoring and rewarding our Dreamers, but we are also addressing the temporary protected status and DED recipients so that they feel much safer.

A year ago, I stood on the floor of this House--yes, in 4-inch heels, for 8 hours, if you want any more statistics--and told many stories of our Dreamers. I couldn't yield because then I would give up my time, so I told the stories of Dreamers. These Dreamers are the constant reinvigoration of America.

Dreamers such as Fernando, who lives in my district, came to the U.S. when he was just 9 years old. He had an excellent education, which I will submit for the Record. He now works at UCSF--that would be the University of California, San Francisco--Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, where he is working hard to provide new insights into deadly diseases and disorders.

There are other stories to tell.

To our businesses and economy, Javier came from Mexico City when he was 5 and now employs hundreds of Americans as CEO of an investment firm.

To technology and innovation, Saba came from Pakistan and is now a Ph.D. candidate studying cancer and other deadly genetic diseases.

And to our security, Andrea came from Peru and is hoping to follow in her father's footsteps as a member of the Air Force.

The list goes on and on. My colleague from California, Mike Thompson, is always bragging that, in California, 5,000 of our teachers are DACA, are Dreamers. We want to give back to them.

The courage, patriotism, and determination to succeed of those young people strengthens our Nation and they must be allowed to stay.

There is nothing partisan or political about protecting Dreamers and TPS and DED recipients.

If the Dream Act had been brought to the floor in the last Congress under the Republican majority and leadership, I do believe that it would have passed under a Republican majority by strong, bipartisan support.

Every President in recent memory--Democrat and Republican--has understood the value of immigration to our Nation.

In his last speech as President of the United States, President Ronald Reagan said he had an important message to communicate to the country he loves, and he went on to say: ``Thanks to each wave of new arrivals to this land of opportunity, we're a nation forever young, forever bursting with energy and new ideas, and always on the cutting edge, always leading the world to the next frontier. This quality is vital to our future as a nation.''

President Reagan went on to say: ``If we ever closed the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost.''

Today, our new Democratic House majority is advancing that leadership in the world, in a bipartisan way, hopefully, with the American Dream and Promise Act.

We are pleased that this legislation opens a door of opportunity to TPS and DED recipients, who are American in every way: raising families, starting businesses, contributing to our communities, and fighting in our wars over decades.

Once we pass this bill--we want it to pass the Senate and be signed by the President. We want it to be a bridge to understand why we need comprehensive immigration reform for an immigration system that embraces the contributions of our newcomers.

Protecting Dreamers and TPS and DED Americans is about honoring the respect for family that is at the heart of our faith and at the heart of who we are as Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong, bipartisan vote to pass this legislation, and to safeguard every person's right to pursue his or her American Dream. And to my colleagues, today, on the floor of this House, we have the opportunity to be part of history, to be on the right side of history, but, more importantly, to be on the right side of the future by voting and recognizing the value of Dreamers to that future.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore