Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate an important ally of ours in the South Caucasus region, Azerbaijan, which is celebrating the 20th anniversary of its independence as a democratic nation. Despite the global recession, Azerbaijan has experienced strong economic growth in each of the past three years, in part due to increased immigration as people from surrounding nations have found that Azerbaijan affords the greatest opportunity for employment, stability and security for working families in the region.

Azerbaijan continues to face unique challenges that it must overcome to maintain the promise of its independent democratic principles. This country of eight million people occupies the Western shore of the Caspian Sea, bordering Russia to the North and Iran to the South. This region contains vast oil and gas resources equivalent to those of Saudi Arabia, with Azerbaijan owning one-third of these valuable deposits, but it must be vigilant in maintaining independence of action regarding the use and distribution of its extracted resources. Their main oil pipeline runs from the capital city, Baku, through Georgia and Turkey, and out to the Turkish port of Ceyhan on the Mediterranean Sea.

In the early 1990's, Azerbaijan was involved in a brutal conflict with its neighbor to the West, Armenia, and the repercussions from atrocities committed during that time still impact diplomatic and economic relations today. Since a cease-fire was negotiated in 1994, these two nations have been locked in a dispute over the Nagorno- Karabakh region, located within Azerbaijan but occupied by Armenian forces. The Minsk Group of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, of which the United States is a co-chair, was created to encourage a peaceful, negotiated resolution to this conflict, yet work remains in reaching this goal.

Azerbaijan is a secular, modern, Muslim nation that has practiced complete religious tolerance for hundreds of years, with some five Jewish synagogues in Baku alone. Israel is an important oil customer of theirs, and in the past year, honored Azerbaijani teams that worked alongside Israelis in fighting large wildfires that ravaged northern Israel. And of major importance, Azerbaijan bolsters U.S. efforts in Afghanistan through troops and airfields that provide logistical support.

It is important that America continue to encourage Azerbaijan in its democratic and economic growth, and highlight the progress made in these last twenty years. Congratulations, Azerbaijan.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Linda Elliot, a loyal and committed LGBT rights advocate, who will receive the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Arizona Individual Equality Award on March 19, 2011. She is truly deserving of this unique honor, and we recognize her many contributions in addressing issues affecting Arizona's LGBT community.

Ms. Elliot's commitment to HRC is commendable, and will soon be marked by 20 years of service to this organization. Throughout her tenure, Ms. Elliot has served in a variety of diverse roles, including her most recent position as the National Co-Chair for the HRC Board of Director's Public Policy Committee. In this capacity, Ms. Elliot and her fellow committee members have helped achieve a series of accomplishments for the LGBT movement, including hate crimes legislation, the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and other gains related to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and gender rights.

Ms. Elliot should also be congratulated for her efforts as a founding member of two HRC chapters in Phoenix and Denver, and for her dedicated membership on a host of community boards and steering committees, including Arizona's Southwest Center for HIV/AIDS, the One-Voice Community Center, the ``No On Prop 107'' steering committee, and the Colorado AIDS Project.

Ms. Elliot has maintained a constant presence in the community she serves, encouraging and inspiring the involvement and participation of numerous other LGBT activists in Arizona.

Personally, I also want to thank Linda for her continued friendship and support, which she has generously offered to me throughout the years.

In considering all of these achievements, I ask that you join me in recognizing Linda Elliot for her tireless advocacy efforts and offer her sincere congratulations upon acceptance of her laudable award.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to both H.R. 830, the FHA Refinance Program Termination Act, and H.R. 836, the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program Termination Act, which we will debate tomorrow.

I readily recognize that both these programs could have accomplished more in helping Americans to save their homes. But, just because a program needs improving does not mean that it should be eliminated.

There is a tremendous need for programs that help homeowners to stay in their homes. We have assisted large national banks, Wall Street investment companies, and the major automobile companies of our country. In fairness, we cannot turn our backs on the hard-working American homeowners--who in most cases were victims of the large, multi-billion dollar financial organizations--and allow them to lose their homes because the economy has hit on such low times.

These mortgage assistance programs can make a difference in the Fourth Congressional District of Arizona. I am told by housing officials in Arizona that part of the reason so little has been done and these programs have had such a limited level of success is that the infrastructure for administering them, both in the private and semi- public sectors, was not in place. And, even when it was put into place, many financial institutions failed to fully cooperate.

Can these programs be improved? The answer is a definite yes.

Should these programs be improved? Again, the answer is yes.

But let us work to fix them, so that they can keep families in their homes.

Local authorities need more discretion in making decisions. The Phoenix housing market is a perfect example of this. Dollar limits that may suffice in other parts of the country are not sufficient in higher priced markets like Phoenix, Las Vegas, Miami, and San Diego.

But, we should not just eliminate these programs because they have struggled to become operative. Let's work together to fix the problems, not create further problems by evicting people from their homes.

I want to thank my friend, Congressman Carter, for yielding.

You see, the problem I have is that 2 hours ago, 3 hours ago, there was great debate about the States who took on the Federal Government over a question of the constitutionality of ObamaCare; and there was a decision that was rendered, and that's going to go to appeal, and everybody is happy because they agree with the decision.

In Arizona, Arizona decided to pass SB 1070. It went to Federal court. Judge Bolton decided that some sections were constitutional, some were unconstitutional, and we are now going through the process of the Ninth Circuit and probably to the Supreme Court.

So what's good for the goose is good for the gander. So I would tell you, why don't you let the process occur, and that way we'll know whether or not Arizona has the power to deal with immigration and whether or not the States can deal with the constitutional issue of ObamaCare.

I want to thank the chairman for recognizing and providing time.

This amendment would prevent FERC from carrying out its statutory authority. The term ``enforce'' would impact oversight of existing and operating liquefied natural gas facilities. This amendment appears to prohibit FERC from approving environmental or safety-related amendments to existing liquefied natural gas facilities. This amendment will impact both import and export proposals in addition to almost any new facilities at preexisting plants.

While I understand the gentleman has concerns in his district, the language would impact a much broader constituency, and for that reason I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I just want to make a point.

The gentleman from California is correct. We did accept his amendment several days ago, an amendment which dealt with the reduction of funds--I think it was $1.9 million--but it was not specific to this dam; it was specific to the account. So this is a very different amendment, and that's why we rise in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).

Mr. Chairman, I was listening; I did understand. Because even though I heard the words, the understanding I had with the chairman of the subcommittee and the reason we supported it was that the reduction of funds was to the account, not these specific projects. So I did listen; I did understand.

But today we are talking about prohibiting money for the study. And I have to tell you that this agreement is to study the potential removal of four privately owned dams, not the agreement to remove dams. It is designed to bring about significant improvements to both environmental conditions and water supplies, certainly, which need to be confirmed through the study.

The studies are scientific. They deal with engineering and economic and environmental-based analysis to determine whether the promise of the agreement will occur. And for that reason, we oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to thank the chairman for yielding.

I have to remind my good friend from Ohio that as the West was settled, it was people from Ohio and Virginia and the Midwest that were making these laws that created most of the western States to be 80 percent, 70 percent, 90 percent Federal lands.

In order for us to be able to have somewhat of a tax base because of the limited private property we have, we need to ask the Federal Government to pay its share. You cannot in many cases develop economically these lands because people from the East prohibit us from developing these public lands. I just want to throw that out as a reminder.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

To my colleague from Missouri, I would tell him that the objective of this amendment has pretty much been accomplished. The last funding that occurred for this study was in, I think, 2009, which was an earmark. So now that earmarks have been eliminated in the CR and eliminated for the future, you would not have that funding as a possibility for this study. Also, the administration has not put any money in its budget, so therefore there is no money in the budget. So for all practical purposes, the funding for the study is not going to continue. So therefore, it's very unlikely that the funding level provided in the bill will receive anything more than the amount to close the study.

And I would tell my friend that the reason I oppose it is that this language I think may be unnecessary because it may impact the orderly termination of the study. And that's why I rise in opposition, because I believe since this study, at least in my opinion, has been terminated, that we at least go through an orderly order with the funding that's available so we can have an orderly termination.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Well, I think I heard the gentleman tell me that the last time the study occurred was in 1944. And because earmarks are no longer the practice and the administration is not providing any funding, it's my belief and my opinion that this study will not go further, and the few dollars that may be left from the former earmark will be used to terminate the study in an orderly fashion.

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

Again, I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment because the objective of the amendment has pretty much been met. There is no funding available to continue it. The few dollars that remain will only be used to terminate the study in an orderly manner. That's the proper way of doing it, and I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to join me.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I also rise to oppose the amendment.

The amendment prohibits funds from being used for oil and gas research. Without this amendment, the Department of Energy would spend $38 million during the year. As my chairman points out, fossil fuel sources are and will continue to be a large part of our energy mix.

Given the importance of research and development in this area, it is necessary to improve the efficiency in the environmental cost of fossil fuels. Further, stopping programs mid year, which this would do, results in costs associated with terminating ongoing work.

I am committed to working with the gentleman to review the balance of funding as we move forward, but I cannot support the amendment at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I join the chairman in his opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it is a promising program that already has provided not only research but the taking of the research, the finding of private capitalization, and the developing of products that can go forward.

One of the problems that we have found in the past for many years is that the Department of Energy has sometimes great problems in doing the basic research or in funding basic research. It has a difficult time getting out to find capitalization and then in being able to commercialize it.

ARPA-E is a process that is small but big in talent which is able to take innovative ideas and is able to research and take them to the next step with private capitalization. It is a program that takes public investment and increases the investment by the private sector. The outcome is the innovation of products, new employment, and new jobs. It is the way to transform the Department of Energy to make it more effective, and it would be a great loss to zero fund it at this time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I rise in support.

This amendment simply reduces the water and related resources account by $1.9 million. Given the limited nature of the amendment, I do not object to the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I join the chairman. We need a mix of energy to gain energy independence. We cannot just rely on the mix of energy we have today, where 70 percent of our energy is generated through coal or natural gas.

Rather than sacrifice our future, we should be looking at methods of closing loopholes for the oil and gas industry.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I join the chairman in opposition to this amendment.

As I stated before, we need a mix of energy to gain energy independence. We cannot just rely on the mix of energy that we have today, where 70 percent of our energy is generated through coal or natural gas.

Rather than sacrifice our future, we should be looking at methods for closing loopholes in the oil and gas industry. I am in opposition to the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to note that on March 18, 2011, my home State of Arizona will celebrate the centennial of Roosevelt Dam, a great accomplishment that for 100 years has served our people. I wish to reflect on what the structure has meant for the Salt River Valley, the State of Arizona, and the Salt River Project,

First of all, I want to thank my colleague from Maryland for yielding the time.

About 3 years ago, Judge Roll informed us that the courthouse in Yuma, which is in southeastern Arizona, lacked the space because of the increased cases dealing with the drug cases and immigration cases that the Federal court was facing in the Yuma area.

It was very interesting. At the time, the request was kind of unusual because, in the line of things, at least in the court itinerary, the Yuma court was not under consideration, but Judge Roll impressed on the delegation that this was sorely needed in the Yuma area, which prompted the Arizona delegation to work in bringing forth some moneys. I have to tell you that, in the last appropriation bill that passed this House, which was the omnibus bill, Chairman Jose Serrano, from New York, was able to appropriate the moneys to have this courthouse constructed.

Also, I want to thank the leadership of the Congress, of the House of Representatives, for bringing this bill forward. It is very appropriate that we name this courthouse in the name of Judge Roll, who was the presiding judge of the Arizona courts. As you have been told--and rightfully so--he was a jurist, a scholar, and a man who had a deep belief in God; but more than that, he was a father, a good husband, and one who continually supported the efforts of his community.

So on behalf of the Arizonans, we thank this House for naming this courthouse in Yuma, Arizona, in honor of Judge Roll. May he rest in peace.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 2 and I am disappointed that the House has acted to repeal the landmark health reform legislation we passed last year.

This act represents a huge step backwards in ensuring that everyone has access to affordable health care. This bill flies in the face of the idea that health care is a right and that everyone deserves access to care.

The repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-142) and the health provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (P.L. 111-152) will have a major impact on the people in my district. Without maintaining the strong protections enacted under these laws, hundreds of thousands of people in the 4th district, including 60,000 children, could be denied coverage because of a preexisting condition. Additionally, nearly 5,000 seniors on Medicare will face immediate increases in the cost of their medication, while an additional 58,000 will be forced to pay out of pocket for preventive screenings for conditions such as breast and colon cancer. And with our economy struggling to get back on track, repealing health care will deny hundreds of small businesses and thousands of families in my district crucial tax credits to help offset the cost of coverage.

I have long supported the idea that health care is a right, not a privilege. It is with that in mind that I strongly oppose this misguided action.

I object. I would like to have the resolution read, if possible.

I withdraw the objection.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the minority leader, Ms. Pelosi.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the leader of the caucus, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

I also join my colleague from Arizona, Jeff Flake, in thanking the leadership in bringing this resolution here this morning. I also want to recognize that Representative Giffords' staff is in the gallery with us this morning. So we want to wish them the best.

Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness I rise today to pay tribute to six innocent and precious Arizonans who, while participating in a public event designated to strengthen our democracy, so tragically lost their lives in a

senseless act of violence last Saturday. I also want to pay tribute to those 14 Arizonans, including our dedicated and beloved colleague, and my personal friend, Gabby Giffords, who were wounded.

These Americans, all dedicated to freedom and all loving their country so much that they chose to use their Saturday morning to participate in a public event to make their government better, are recovering at different paces and with unique and different needs. The city of Tucson, Pima County, and the entire State of Arizona stand poised to assist and welcome these brave heroes back to our communities once they have recovered.

Gabby continues to fight, literally fight, every minute for her life. And we are all reaching toward our God in prayer, contemplation, and silent whispers in our unified effort to bring about her quick recovery and return to us here in this House of Representatives.

Those who perished--Phyllis Schneck, Dorothy Morris, Gabe Zimmerman, Christina Taylor Green, Dorwin Stoddard, and John Roll--will be missed by their families, their colleagues, their friends, and all Arizonans.

Phyllis Schneck was described by her New Jersey hometown paper as a lifelong conservative, yet she was there to see Gabby because she admired her. This is a perfect example of someone who wanted to step beyond the current vitriol in modern-day politics and bring us together.

Dorothy Morris was married to a former Marine Corps pilot, who was also wounded and recovering. We all know the patriotism and love of country every spouse of a marine exhibits, and she was no exception.

Gabe Zimmerman was one of us. A dedicated staff member to Gabby, it is said that he literally lived to serve his community. Sadly, he perished, but he perished fulfilling his calling and doing what he loved--helping the people of his town.

Christina Taylor Green was just starting her political career. She had just been elected to her school's student council and wanted to come see it done at the highest level. She wanted to see a pro, so she came to see Gabby. She was a special little girl who kept reaching for the stars in politics, dance, baseball, and whatever her heart desired.

Dorwan Stoddard died shielding his wife, who was also wounded but expected to recover. Following their regular Saturday outing, Dorwan brought his wife, Mavy, to Gabby because reportedly she wanted to tell Gabby what a good job she was doing. High school sweethearts who were reconnected after many years apart, they were a pillar of their church community. And we know Mavy will continue on, saddened and burdened, but hopefully not broken.

Finally, Judge Roll had been working with Gabby and several of us in the delegation for the past several months trying to make the courts in Arizona more efficient and more responsive to both the victim and the accused. I knew him to be a fair, dedicated, charming, professional, and loyal person. He loved his family; he loved his profession; he loved his job, his community, and his country. Arizona and the Nation will be a different place without him.

Again, I am encouraged by the reports concerning all the wounded. These individuals are the perfect example of the strength of Arizonans and all Americans. They will recover, we pray, and they will not shy from continuing to serve their community.

This is most true for Gabby. Gabby is a special person among us here in Congress. We all know that. We all love her pragmatism, her bipartisanship, her willingness to learn, her dedication to give, her compassion for her job and for each of us, and her spirit to continue striving to make the Eighth Congressional District of Arizona and America a better place to live and work.

Hopefully, it won't be much longer until we see her here, her smiling face with us again, doing what she loves, and working hard for the people of our country.

Our prayers go to Gabby, all the victims, and the families of the deceased.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the assistant to the leader, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Richardson).

I yield the gentlelady an additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Davis).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the dean of the Congress, the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Fudge).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

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

On behalf of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, the families of the victims, the people recovering in Tucson and my fellow Arizonans, I want to express a sense of gratitude to all the Members here who have spoken and will speak, for your prayers, for your condolences and your affection you have given all of us.

We thank you very much from the bottom of our hearts. We hope that some of the expressions you have given of showing respect, more respect to each other, more love for each other and disagreeing, debating, but not being disagreeable, will help us do the business of this House.

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5281.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge passage of H.R. 5281, the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors, DREAM, Act.

The DREAM Act would create a pathway to citizenship for undocumented young people, who were brought to the U.S. as children, raised in this country, have excelled in our education systems, and have expressed a clear commitment to pursue higher education or military service. Many of these young people currently live in Arizona's Fourth Congressional district, and under this bill, these bright and ambitious individuals will receive the opportunity to reap the full benefits of their educational advancements and military service by eventually obtaining legal citizenship.

Such an achievement is advantageous not only for these young people and their families, but for our communities and our Nation as a whole. It is largely known that over a lifetime, a million-dollar difference exists between the earning capacity of a high school graduate and a college graduate. Research also shows that college graduates are more likely to volunteer and participate in their communities, and are less likely to be incarcerated or be recipients of public assistance. The earning power of college graduates also translates into important tax revenues for our Federal, State, and local treasuries, a point particularly poignant during this time of large deficits.

The DREAM Act has received support from the Secretaries of Defense, Homeland Security, Education, and Labor. Secretary Gates has offered his endorsement of the proposal which would provide children of non- resident immigrants a clear path to U.S. citizenship through military service. We know the sacrifice asked of our service members and their families, and if these individuals are willing to make such a commitment, we should honor their decision by extending full citizenship rights. In considering the Department of Defense's challenges with recruitment and readiness, passage of the DREAM Act would ensure access to a new pool of eligible youth, ready to serve the U.S. military and wear its respective uniforms.

Passage of the DREAM Act will reward the good decisions of many young people in my district, individuals who are placing their education at the forefront of their responsibilities, and who possess strong values beneficial to our Arizona communities and neighborhoods. As a body of Members who have collectively attained a high degree of education, we know the benefits we have received from our hard work and dedication. We must support legislation which rewards the same characteristics of diligence and commitment, allowing these young people to fully benefit, as U.S. citizens, from their accomplishments.

I know students in my district who have been patiently waiting for passage of the DREAM Act. I truly am honored to represent this group of intelligent and driven young people, as I know their character and their desire to not only better their futures and that of their families, but also this Nation; a country in which they acknowledge has befitted them with great opportunities. I am confident these young people, through their intellectual contributions and military service, will continue to give back to a Nation they love so dearly and call their own.

I ask my Colleagues to join me in supporting the important passage of H.R. 5281, the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors, DREAM, Act.

Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 473 on H. Con. Res. 301, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''