Floor Statements

``The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.''

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 4748, the Northern Border Counternarcotics Strategy Act, requires the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP, to develop a counternarcotics strategy for the U.S. Canadian border. The House passed this legislation last July. The Senate made several technical and conforming changes to the language and sent it back to the House for final consideration.

Significant attention has been paid to drug trafficking along our southern border with Mexico, but the northern border with Canada is also a major transit point for high-potency marijuana, Ecstasy, and other illegal drugs. According to the 2010 National Drug Threat Assessment, Asian drug trafficking organizations produce the drug Ecstasy in Canada and then smuggle it across the northern border into the U.S. America's northern border is remote, heavily wooded and sparsely populated, ideal for smugglers seeking to move their product into the U.S. undetected.

In 2006, Congress directed the ONDCP to prepare a counternarcotics strategy for our southwestern border. H.R. 4748 mirrors this strategy, but for our northern border.

While we continue to address drug trafficking across our southern border, we must not lose sight of the ease with which our northern border can be exploited by dangerous drug smugglers. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to imagine a worse example of media bias than the national coverage of the so-called DREAM Act. Seldom were the facts given to the American people.

The national media said it applied to ``65,000 youngsters.'' The legislation actually would give amnesty to at least 1 million to 2 million illegal immigrants up to the age of 30. And no one in the national media mentioned that no hearings had been held on the bill and no committee had approved it.

The DREAM Act would mean fewer jobs for American workers, and the Congressional Budget Office said it would cost taxpayers billions of dollars. But you won't hear that from the national media.

Even if the national media won't, Congress should put the interests of American workers and taxpayers first. That's what the last election was all about.

I thank my colleague for yielding and a distinguished member of the Rules Committee for giving me time.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. The so-called DREAM Act is a nightmare for the American people, and this proposed rule is a nightmare for House Members. Once again, we are considering a bill that Members have not had adequate time to review, that has not gone through the proper committee process, and that we cannot amend. This is far from the open and transparent process we were promised.

The majority promised that Members of this body would be able to review legislation for 24 hours prior to a vote. We have only had the text of this bill for a few hours. So much for that commitment to the American people.

If this rule passes, the majority will have prevented Members from offering amendments. And the majority has even eliminated the one possible way the bill could be improved, with a motion to recommit. This undemocratic way of considering legislation stands in contrast to the way Republicans will operate in the next Congress. Come January, the Republican majority will show the Democrats what it's like to have a fair, honest and open debate. We will educate them on the democratic process.

Just over a month ago, the American people rebuked the way that Democrats have run the House of Representatives and the Federal Government in general, so one might think that the majority would change their ways, but it seems that the Democrats have learned nothing and have forgotten everything.

If this rule is adopted, we will be forced to consider a bill that we will have no chance to amend, even though it puts the interests of illegal immigrants ahead of the interests of American citizens. It hurts American workers, rewards lawbreakers, and encourages continued defiance of the most fundamental American value--the rule of law.

Today Americans face an unemployment rate of 9.8 percent. The unemployment rate has exceeded 9.5 percent for 16 straight months, the longest stretch since the Great Depression. The DREAM Act makes illegal immigrants eligible to work legally in the United States. Why are Democrats doing this to American workers? This Congress should focus on creating jobs for Americans, not promoting policies that cause unemployment.

I am sympathetic to the young, illegal immigrant children who were brought here by their parents. Because their parents disregarded America's immigration laws, they are in a difficult position. However, this bill actually rewards the very illegal immigrant parents who knowingly violated our laws.

Once the DREAM Act's amnesty recipients become citizens and turn 21, if they haven't already they can sponsor their illegal immigrant parents, spouse, or children for legalization, who can then sponsor others, resulting in chain migration that will further hurt American workers and American taxpayers.

As has happened with past amnesties, this new amnesty will encourage more illegal immigration because other illegal immigrant parents will bring their children to the U.S. with the expectation that they, too, will benefit from the DREAM Act.

Also, as soon as an individual files an application under the DREAM Act, the Department of Homeland Security is prohibited from removing them. So there is an automatic stay from deportation for anyone who applies under this bill. And criminals are not excluded. Those with histories of passport fraud, visa fraud, and even driving under the influence will be granted amnesty.

Although the bill enacts disastrous policies, the lack of an open and fair process is another reason to oppose it and this rule.

The majority has brought this bill to the floor without giving Members adequate time to review it. The majority has brought this bill to the floor without holding any hearings on the bill or its impact, thus depriving Members of the ability to learn how the bill would work or not work. The majority has brought this bill to the floor without committee approval, so Members have not had the opportunity to offer amendments. The majority has even eliminated the one way the minority is supposedly guaranteed as a way to address the people's concerns, a motion to recommit.

In addition to the negative impact of the DREAM Act on American citizens and the rule of law, the undemocratic procedures justify strong opposition to the rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, the national media have framed the tax debate from a liberal perspective.

For example, the media frequently say Republicans favor extending tax ``cuts,'' which implies lowering tax rates from their current level.

In fact, Republicans support extending the existing tax rates to avoid a $3.9 trillion tax increase on every taxpaying American.

Furthermore, the media often say that Republicans support tax cuts for the rich. However, they rarely mention that the country's top earners already pay a disproportionately large share of the nation's taxes.

In fact, the top 1 percent of earners pay a larger share of the income tax burden than the bottom 95 percent of earners combined. And many of the top 1 percent are small business owners who create jobs and stimulate the economy.

The national media should give Americans the facts on taxes, not tell them what to think.

I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Illinois for yielding me time. I also would like to thank my colleagues on the committee itself for giving this resolution bipartisan support.

Madam Speaker, this resolution honors Rotary International for 105 years of service and commends members for their dedication to the mission and principles of Rotary.

The mission of Rotary International is to provide service to others, promote integrity and advance world standing, goodwill and peace through its fellowship. All across the country, business, professional and community leaders better their communities by participating in their local Rotary Clubs.

Founded in 1905 in Chicago, Illinois, Rotary International is the world's first service club and one of the largest nonprofit service organizations. Rotary International promotes international understanding through scholarships, exchange programs, humanitarian grants and service projects. Their motto is ``Service Above Self.''

Rotary International also promotes universal values with their ``four-way test'' that asks the following questions: ``Of the things we think, say or do: Is it the truth? Is it fair to all concerned? Will it build goodwill and better friendships? Will it be beneficial to all concerned?''

It is a pleasure to recognize Rotary International for 105 years of service. I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring them on this achievement.

Madam Speaker, the New York Times recently decided to print classified State Department documents obtained illegally by WikiLeaks.

But one year ago, The Times declined to print information released during the ClimateGate scandal that showed scientists were hiding contradictory temperature data.

Regarding its decision to print the WikiLeaks documents, The Times wrote: ``For The Times to ignore this material would be to deny its own readers the careful reporting and thoughtful analysis they expect when this kind of information becomes public.''

In contrast, The Times said they did not publish the ClimateGate documents because, ``The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won't be posted here.''

There is no better example of a double standard.

Madam Speaker, during the lame duck session, Democrats in Congress want to pass the DREAM Act, which uses taxpayer dollars to give illegal immigrants amnesty and in-state tuition at public universities.

The national media are doing their best to help.

For example, out of 13 recent articles regarding the DREAM Act in The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Los Angeles Times, 11 were overwhelmingly one-sided and sympathetic to illegal immigrants.

That means 85% were biased.

In one such article, the term ``conservative'' was used to describe opponents of the legislation, but not one of the left-wing amnesty groups or activists mentioned in the article was described as ``liberal.''

The national media should give Americans all the facts about immigration, not just one side.

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

Madam Speaker, I support S. 1338, which requires the accreditation of English language training programs for student visa holders, and I am a cosponsor of the House version of the bill. Accreditation of English programs will ensure that foreign students here on temporary visas receive the high-level English language education they deserve and expect. And this legislation will help give the students a positive experience in America as well.

The bill prevents fraud in the student visa program and raises the quality of English language training programs in the United States. It does so by requiring accreditation, which is achieved only after certain learning criteria are met.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a foreign national can get a student visa to study at a U.S. college, high school, or other learning institution such as an established ``language training program approved by the Secretary of Homeland Security after consultation with the Secretary of Education.'' This bill requires that a nonimmigrant foreign student seeking to enter the United States to study at a language training program must enroll in a program that is recognized and accredited by the Secretary of Education. The Senate has passed this legislation by unanimous consent, and I urge my colleagues to support it as well.

Intensive English Programs (``IEPs'') serve to teach English to foreign students. There are 90,000 such students in the United States. The programs range in length from two weeks to one year, but average 12 weeks. There are nearly 1,000 IEP's in the U.S., and students must study a minimum of 18 hours per week to meet their visa requirements.

Currently all IEPs must be officially recognized, but that sometimes means there is just a check to see that the building in which the IEP is supposedly located, actually exists. The result of such lax monitoring is widespread fraud in the IEP community.

Illegitimate IEPs either do not teach English well or serve as scams for individuals who want to come to the United States through fraudulent means. In April 2008, the Los Angeles Times reported, ``The operator of two English language schools was charged Wednesday with running a scheme that allowed foreign nationals, including several Russian prostitutes, to fraudulently obtain student visas to enter and stay in the United States.''

In April 2009, two individuals who ran an English language school for immigrants in Duluth, GA, were indicted for submitting fraudulent documents to the Department of Homeland Security. They did so in order to get student visas for ``dozens, and perhaps hundreds, of `students.' ''

And last March agents in the Miami Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office conducted the ``largest single visa fraud takedown in [the] agency's history,'' when they arrested two women who helped obtain fraudulent student visas for over 200 individuals who were supposedly attending an English school, but who were not actually doing so.

Such fraudulent programs, along with IEPs that do not function well, tarnish the reputation of the entire IEP industry. That's why the American Association of Intensive English Programs supports this legislation. And legitimate IEPs are interested in ensuring the quality of their programs.

Under this bill, IEPs can meet the accreditation requirement in one of two ways. First, they can be under the governance of a university or college that has been accredited by a regional accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. Or, second, they can be individually accredited by The Accrediting Council for Continuing Education and Training or the Commission or English Language Program Accreditation.

The three typical steps in the accreditation process are (1) the completion of a written self-study that documents how the program or institution meets the standards of the accreditation agency; (2) a site visit by an agency team to verify that standards are being met; and (3) follow-up measures on the part of the school to correct any deficiencies, subject to review and final approval by the accreditation agency.

Currently, many legitimate IEPs are voluntarily becoming accredited on their own.

I urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, criticism of H.R. 3808 focuses on its potential application to the ongoing crisis in the foreclosure markets. News accounts have detailed stories of fraudulent activity involving affidavits used to rid banks of bad mortgage inventories. I support any effort to combat that activity, but this situation does not involve

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), who is the sponsor of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, CNN claims to be the fair cable news alternative. They say they report the news ``without playing favorites,'' according to a new slogan.

The facts tell a different story.

In the weeks leading up to election day, liberal guests on CNN outnumbered conservative guests by a margin of more than 3 to 2, according to an analysis by the Media Research Center.

From October 4 through October 29, there were a total of 88 liberal guests to just 56 conservative guests.

And all three of the network's prime-time news programs featured more liberals than conservatives, according to MRC.

So much for not playing favorites.

CNN should give Americans the facts, not skew their programming to support a liberal agenda.

Members of National Public Radio's board of directors have a clear and overwhelming liberal bias, according to an analysis by National Review.

The study found that ``nearly all [NPR board members] have demonstrably liberal political sympathies, with heavy support for the Democratic party, pro-abortion-rights groups, and environmental activism in particular.''

Furthermore, ``[NPR's] board members also sit on the boards of explicitly progressive advocacy groups, and have given millions of dollars to Democrats and liberal PACs--at the same time that they control the country's `public' radio network.''

With liberals dominating NPR's board, it's no surprise its news coverage also shows a liberal bias.

NPR should give Americans the facts, not tell them what to think.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support House Resolution 716, which commends Gail Abarbanel for her dedication to advancing forensic sciences and reducing the DNA evidence backlog. Ms. Abarbanel is the founder of the Rape Treatment Center at the Santa Monica UCLA Medical Center, where she established the Fast Track Forensics Program.

I would like to thank a good friend and colleague, Patrick Kennedy, for his sponsorship of this bill, as well as for his longstanding dedication to people in need. His compassion for others will be remembered and missed after he leaves Congress later this year.

One of the most significant issues facing the criminal justice system today is the substantial backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples and biological evidence from crime scenes. This issue is particularly urgent in sexual assault and murder cases.

The Fast Track Forensics Program was developed by Gail Abarbanel to help crime laboratories speed up the processing of DNA evidence. This in turn gives local law enforcement agencies a headstart on bringing criminals to justice.

DNA evidence is important in cases where a suspect has been identified and proof is needed to link the suspect to a crime scene or victim. It is equally important in cases where there is no suspect. In a case without a suspect, DNA from the crime scene or the victim can be compared to offender profiles in DNA databases in an effort to identify and apprehend the perpetrator. DNA technology that improves the analysis process is increasingly vital to ensure accuracy and fairness in the criminal justice system.

In 2008, Congress reauthorized the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program, which provides Federal grants to States to help fund initiatives such as the Fast Track Forensics Program. Programs designed to help alleviate DNA backlogs are imperative in ensuring that this forensic evidence is preserved, tested, and used in criminal cases to bring violent offenders to justice. Congress must continue its commitment to assisting backlog initiatives. This is especially true for rape and sexual assault cases.

In the United States, a person is sexually assaulted every 2\1/2\ minutes. According to the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, the Nation's largest anti-sexual assault organization, one of every six American women will be the victim of an attempted or actual rape in her lifetime. With the use of DNA, our State and local law enforcement agencies and officials can bring these attackers to justice.

The development of programs such as the Fast Track Forensics Program is important to our criminal justice system. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

I yield back the balance my time.

Madam Speaker, the national media have shown a clear liberal bias in their coverage of immigration.

For example, The New York Times frequently give large amounts of coverage to small pro-amnesty protests, but they ignore or downplay big protests by conservative groups.

This week, The Times featured a 1200-word story about a rally of ``dozens'' in support of the DREAM Act, which would grant amnesty to millions of individuals.

Earlier this year, The Times covered pro-amnesty demonstrations with as few as four or five protesters.

The Times is not alone ire their biased coverage of immigration. By a margin of 12 to 1, the television networks featured more negative reports than positive reports about Arizona's immigration enforcement law; according to a Media Research Center analysis.

The national media should give Americans the facts, not advocate for a liberal, pro-amnesty agenda.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats in Congress won't tell the American people how much they're going to raise their taxes. They're going to wait till after the election when we come back into session.

And Democrats in Congress won't tell the American people how they're

going to spend their money. For the first time in 35 years, no budget was offered.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are spending almost $2 for every $1 the Federal Government collects. That puts a drag on the economy and kills jobs.

The American people have had enough. It's time to end the one-party monopoly in Washington.