Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on Monday, June 3. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 184, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 185. I was also inadvertently absent for the following votes and would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 189, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 205.

I move to strike the last word.

First of all, this has nothing to do with the Constitution of the United States. The fact is that the Congress of the United States has passed laws granting the President of the United States this executive authority. He has it by statute and by law. As a matter of fact, many of you might remember that in 1999, Congressman Lamar Smith and others wrote to then-President Clinton asking him to use his discretionary power more often.

In other words, I'm sorry to say to the gentleman, Mr. King, but I think the gentleman from Texas is an authority on this issue, as he has chaired the Judiciary Committee, and the gentleman from Texas knows best. He signed that letter. And it was bipartisan. So this has nothing to do with the Constitution of the United States, not to kid ourselves.

Now, if we want to deal fundamentally with if this is good or bad, we can deal with that also. The fact is that this House passed the DREAM Act 216-208--that is a fact--in the fall of 2010, and 55 Senators stood up for the DREAM Act in the Senate.

The fact is that a majority of Senators have already voted in favor of it, and a majority of the Members of this House.

Now, what I don't find in the Constitution is where it says that a majority of Senators shouldn't prevail. We all know that. It should be just simply 51 out of 100, but that's not the way the Senate works. But that's not in the Constitution of the United States.

So what the President is really doing in his executive order is allowing. And I just want people to understand that we're also here for justice and for fairness. It is only fair and just that young men and women--who are no different than my daughters, than your daughters. They are just as American as they are. They speak this language. This is the country that they love. It is the only country that they know. And we're waiting for the paperwork to catch up to those Americans-- that's what they are.

They came out by the hundreds of thousands. In Chicago, there were 12,000 in line. They came up with their moms and their dads and they were crying for joy because they had an opportunity to go to school, to become educated, and to contribute back to this Nation--children. We should not hold children responsible for the actions of adults and of their parents. We should give them an opportunity, and that is what this executive order has done.

They go to school with your children. They sit down in the same churches with you and pray on Sunday. They play on the same playground. They're an integral part of the communities in which we live. In America, when they hear them speak, they hear the voices of young Americans. And one day we will pass the DREAM Act, and we will not need an executive order.

Things are getting better, Mr. King, here. November 6, everybody said stop picking winners and losers; let's fix this immigration issue. And Republicans and Democrats are working together to find a solution. Now is not the time to divide this House and the Senate when it is looking.

We can't talk decently about Benghazi or the IRS or anything-- ObamaCare or the budget or guns. But there is one thing. I mean, when you have a Vice Presidential candidate, our colleague, Paul Ryan, come to Chicago and speak, when you have Congressman Carter come to San Antonio with me and speak, things are changing. Let's respect that. Let's respect the love and the intensity of caring about fixing our broken immigration system that has been expressed.

I was so delighted, I want to say to the gentleman from Iowa, when your majority leader, Mr. Cantor, gave a speech and said I'm not only for the DREAM Act, I'm for a pathway to citizenship for the dreamer. I said great. I didn't question his motives. I said great. How can I help you?

Let's help him, the majority leader, and others--Democrats and Republicans alike--who have said, you know what, let's fix our broken immigration system. We're tired of it dividing families.

I want to say I've had them come into my office, American citizen soldiers--going and fighting on the frontline so that you have the right to speak here and protect it--and they have their wives being deported. We should have this discretion so their wives aren't deported. That's only fair and right.

Four million American citizen children--Mr. King, 4 million American citizen children have undocumented parents. We should not separate them. We should have discretion to keep those families together.

Let's defeat this motion. It has no place in the House of Representatives.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I just want to make clear something about DACA. I filled out many applications, as I know my colleague from Minnesota has. They pay a fee. They go through an extensive background check. They have to give up their fingerprints and go through an extensive background check if they find they're denied DACA. So don't think it's just show up.

Now they're given a work permit for 2 years, and they get to work with that work permit. They don't have any right to health care or to any means-tested program, nothing but the right to work and not to be deported from the United States of America, and they're contributing to this country already.

So I just want to make that clear. Why would we want to spend the money of the Federal Government chasing down and hunting down and deporting people who came here as children who do not even know the country that they came from? Again, I want to reiterate: they are American in everything but a piece of paper. And the Congress of the United States should be working to try to see how it is we bring them in and integrate them more fully.

I want to express to the gentleman from Iowa something very, very clearly. I want to use every dollar and every resource to go after every gang-banger, every drug dealer, every person that is a criminal doing harm in the United States. But these are children who are doing no one harm. They came as children, they are innocent, and should be treated as such.

We want to prioritize our enforcement. We want to prioritize our enforcement so that we go after people who will do American citizens ill. They don't. They're children. They're wonderful, young people. And I would suggest to everybody here, meet one, talk to one. And what you're going to see is, the same values that you inculcate in your own children are the values that have been invested in these young men and women. We should give them a chance.

Many of them are being denied as they go through the process. But it is a process that says we should use prosecutorial discretion. It is law. Everybody in this body knows, and you don't have to be a student of the Constitution of the United States to know, that the President has plenary powers to pardon anybody at any time for any reason. Just ask Gerald Ford about Richard Nixon. That is a fact.

The President of the United States in this case is taking innocent young men and women who have been thoroughly checked in their background and said, Do you know what? I want to go after the mean, ugly people who want to do us harm, and I want to set aside these young men and women. We voted for it--216 to 208--and it was a proud day in the Congress of the United States.

And I just want to say one more time to the gentleman from Iowa, there are Members of your side of the aisle who I know----

No, I won't.

Who are going to continue to work with us in this Congress of the United States to get this finished. Please let us do that work.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for a vote on Thursday, May 23. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 181.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes Friday, May 17. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 155, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 156, ``nay'' on rollcall

vote 157, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 158, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 159, and ``nay'' on rollcall vote 160.

personal explanation

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chair, as a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I am very familiar with the types of threats that this country faces every day and the serious ramifications of cyber vulnerabilities. This is an issue to which the committee has devoted a great deal of time and energy during the last year.

In the cyber security realm these threats are growing in frequency and severity, so much so that the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, identified cyber security as a top threat facing this country earlier this year. Director Clapper stated in an open hearing just a month ago that the growing cyber capabilities of both state and non-state actors ``put all sectors of our county at risk, from government and private networks to critical infrastructures.'' We have seen more and more brazen attacks, from financial institutions and banks to news outlets, credit card companies, telecommunications providers and even government entities.

I believe that we should make every effort to safeguard the privacy of Americans' personal information even as we take steps to prevent attacks to our electronic networks and attempts to steal trade secrets, facilitate critical information sharing, and protect our critical infrastructure.

To that end, the committee made a number of improvements to the bill with bipartisan support during our markup last week. Most notably, we voted to remove the authority for private information to be used for broad non-cyber ``national security'' purposes. We also expanded oversight responsibilities for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board and restricted usage of information received by private entities to cyber security information. The bill also requires the government to minimize any personal information that is unrelated to a cyber threat. The bill has improved since the last time it was considered by the House of Representatives in 2012.

I understand that there remain areas of concern for some of my colleagues. I share your reservations and am disappointed that we were unable to adopt amendments to address some of the liability issues, require private sector entities to make ``reasonable efforts'' to remove irrelevant personally identifiable information, and establish the Department of Homeland Security as the primary receptor of cyber threat information. An amendment to place DHS as the primary agency was not made in order today and I hope that we can continue to work on an agreement to do that.

I am sensitive to these privacy concerns and hope that we can continue to improve the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act through amendments today and ongoing dialogue. However, my underlying concerns about the national security implications of ever-present and even escalating cyber attacks compels me to support the bill today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Illinois, the Honorable Robin Kelly, be permitted to take the oath of office today.

Her certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to her election.

Mr. Speaker, I yield that 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Bobby Rush. His name obviously ends in R and mine in G and that's why I got to be the dean, but we're sharing this together because this is a joyous day.

Congressman Bobby Rush, please introduce the gentlelady.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Thank you, Congressman Shimkus.

And now, ladies and gentlemen, the newest distinguished lady from the State of Illinois (Ms. Kelly).

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

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for one vote on February 13, 2013 and votes today. I would like the record to show that had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 40, ``nay'' on rollcall votes 43 and 44, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 45.

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes Monday, January 14. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 8, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 9 and ``nay'' on rollcall vote 10.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan.

We've heard about how important STEM visas are. And we don't want to debate the point; they're important. That's why when we have the real immigration debate, the debate that will result in the signature of the President, the debate that starts in January when Congress is sworn in, that's why we will have STEM visas in that bill.

So everyone agrees STEM visas are important; and if you didn't know this before the last election, I hope you know it now. The American people want us to fix our immigration system.

But the more important message I got from the election is that American people say that we can solve the immigration issue if Republicans and Democrats work together, put aside bitterness, come to the table in an honest manner. It's not enough to talk about lowering the rhetoric. If we do it in an honest manner, a transparent manner, we can solve the tough problems of immigration and put it at the top of our list.

We need to approach immigration as a faucet of America's past, present, and future, and solve the problems we have with our current immigration mess like adults: honestly and openly and in a bipartisan manner. We need to stop scoring cheap political points and playing games with immigration and start working together, not bringing bills without ever discussing and negotiating with the other side of the aisle. That's not the way to be comprehensive. This is why it is so disappointing that the majority has decided to undermine an area of bipartisan agreement on STEM visas by loading up the measure with provisions that are a slap in the face to the core values and the rich tradition of immigrants to the United States of America.

If you support this bill, you're saying that one group of immigrants is better than another, that one type of educated, degree-holding person and their work is more important than others. In order to give visas to those with Ph.D.s and master's degrees, Republicans make two demands. First, we take away visas and the only means of legal immigration from 50,000 people who may not have Ph.D.s and master's degrees. Talk about picking winners and losers. My dad, if he had been an immigrant from Ireland or Nigeria or Taiwan, would have been told, No, America is not for you under this bill, Mr. Gutierrez. It's like when they used to hang up signs in America saying, ``Help wanted. Irish need not apply.'' They were part of the diversity program today that they want to kill.

The second thing this bill requires is that we treat the families of those with Ph.D.s and master's degrees differently than we treat the families of those who don't have doctorates. If you have a master's or a Ph.D., we say, Please, come to America. Bring your wife, bring your husband, bring your kids. We'll give them all permission to work. Automatic work permits for spouses, no waiting for STEM-degree holders. But if you don't have a Ph.D. or a master's degree, we're going to take away your wife's ability to work legally. We may let her in 6 months earlier, but--

It's as though they said to my father, Let's check your education record, Mr. Gutierrez. Oh, no doctor before your name, no fancy initials, Mr. Gutierrez, after your name? Well, Mr. Gutierrez, you and the kids stay home. You can't work.

That is not America. There was no special line for Ph.D. and master's degree holders on Ellis Island. There was no asterisks on the Statue of Liberty that said IQ must be there in a higher standard. They are saying my father--and I resent it--was too stupid to make it, but he put two kids through college, and one in the House of Representatives.

Let's look at what we've debated here this morning. The truth is, as the gentleman from California so rightfully notes, this is something we can all agree on, and that is STEM visas to supply the need for that economic engine of our economy. That's not really the question here. The question is: At what cost do we allow this to happen? And what we are saying is it is almost as though November 6 came and went and my friends on the other side of the aisle just never listened to the verdict of the people. And what they said to us was, Stop picking winners and losers. Stop dividing and pitting one American against another.

How many countless occasions have we heard our friends on the other side of the aisle decry us for class warfare, and yet they come with a proposal here today, and we can use their very words: They want smart people; they want educated people; they want people that are going to add something to the economy. Well, let me just suggest that we, many of us in this Congress today, came from very humble roots.

And, yes, I resent the fact that people come before the well of the House to tout the virtues of their moms and dads and say, My mom worked really hard. She scrubbed pots; she stayed up; she mopped people's homes; she worked so hard. She had nothing left on her fingers so that I could get an education and I could come to the Congress of the United States. And yet they come and propose something that will deny other people that same opportunity to come here to work hard, to sweat and to toil

and to one day maybe send their son or daughter to the Congress of the United States.

We can find these speeches throughout the history of the Congress of the United States; but the difference today is that this side of the aisle wants to be honest and consistent with that story, that virtuous story of immigrants who have come here to sweat and to toil from all kinds. We don't want to go back to the day of ``Irish need not apply.'' We know the history of immigration in this country when they were saying, Well, not those people, not those that are not educated, not those that are hungry, not those that are famished, they should not come here. That's an old argument and we shouldn't be making it today, especially after the election that we just had.

All we're saying to the other side of the aisle is: Why is it that you couldn't sit down with this side of the aisle in a bipartisan manner? Because that's what people said during the election. They said, Listen, guys, we want you to settle down. We want you to work this out for the good of the American people.

I'm going to tell you why I believe you couldn't negotiate with us. Because you have to negotiate with NumbersUSA. Why don't we just say it. They're the party that's not here in the well of the House, but they're here in spirit and in the legislative policy that we are reiterating here today. You can't negotiate with us because you have to negotiate with the most extreme element of American society on immigration and not with those that want to bring about comprehensive immigration reform and reform in our immigration system.

And what is NumbersUSA? In short, NumbersUSA, a short, descriptive modifier should call it an immigration reduction organization.

So who did you negotiate with? The immigration reduction organization. And that's why you have to put up the visas, these visas that have allowed tens of thousands of people to come to this country and to work hard and to sweat and to toil and to make this a greater Nation for all of us.

Now, how does it reduce the numbers? It's simple. You know it and we know it. Every graduate, master's, and Ph.D. on an annual basis in the United States, what is the number? What is the number? That's the number we should be cognizant of here today. It's 29,000. Now it's 55,000 visas.

So why is it that we're offering 55,000 visas for 29,000 possible graduates? And wait a minute. That's if every graduate doesn't go back to their country. And we know many of them return to their countries to build those nations, and we want that to continue. We want them to come to the United States of America and go back to their country and foster democracy and goodwill. So many of them do that. But not all the 29,000 stay here. So what happens? You eliminate 50,000 visas. You say we're going to give you 55,000. You know you only can use 29,000. It's a net loss.

The people on the other side of the aisle keep telling us, Why don't they come through the legal way? Why don't they come through the legal way? Why do they always have to go under and around? They should come here legally because we're for legal immigration.

Today you're not for legal immigration because, in the end, you reduce the ability of people to come legally to the United States of America, and that is the Diversity program.

And lastly, let me just be very, very clear. When we look at this and we talk about the continent of Africa, we think it's important that every continent of the world be able to come here and contribute to the great Nation that is because that is the diversity and the greatest tradition of America: Ellis Island, bring me everyone from everywhere to sweat and to toil and to make America a greater Nation. But think about it a moment. Just do the math. If half of the 55,000 Diversity visas come from the continent of Africa, and there are only 29,000 total STEM, come on, just do the numbers and you can see why it is that on our side of the aisle.

Let's sit down. Let's have a hearing. Let's bring in the experts. Let's have a discussion and a debate. Let's work together. Let's sit back. But if we're going to move America forward, then we have to stop negotiating with those that want to keep us in the past, and that's NumbersUSA. It's NumbersUSA who said to you self-deportation should be the rule of law in America; S.B. 1070 is great and should be institutionalized in every State of the Union.

We rejected that this last election. In this last election, there was a referendum and there were those of us on one side that said to the American people, We want an immigration system that is fairer and sets aside the political bickering to the one side and allows us to fix our immigration system, and another that said, We want to stand in the past.

Let's work together to build a better future for all of us. I honestly and earnestly want that to happen, but I cannot in good conscience vote for a bill that offends my sense of fairness, that offends my sense of the great American tradition that is our immigration tradition.

Thank you so much.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you how you know you've

turned the corner on the immigration debate.

When Sean Hannity and Senator Rand Paul and a group of others in the Republican Party begin saying it's time to rethink the party's approach to immigration, we've probably reached a milestone. When Donald Trump says the Republican policy of asking 12 million people to self-deport is a ``crazy policy'' that likely cost the Republicans the White House, you've turned a corner. Any time I agree with Donald Trump, hope for a bipartisan agreement should be running high.

Most Americans believe that Election Day demonstrated that it's time to move beyond the same old politics, the same tired blame game on immigration. So, when I saw a Republican-sponsored STEM visa bill on the House calendar this week, I thought, well, maybe House Republicans are changing their tune. On the campaign trail, we heard Governor Romney say he supported stapling green cards to the diplomas of every math and science graduate from our universities. Why should we educate some of the best minds on Earth and then say, ``Sorry, no room in the U.S. economy for you''? It makes no sense. They go away and compete against us rather than innovating and creating jobs here.

Then I took a closer look at what the Republicans are actually proposing. They haven't turned a corner at all. In fact, they haven't even stepped out of their houses. They certainly didn't learn anything from the last election. The STEM visa bill on the House floor this week was actually voted down in September. It was introduced with a few changes but with absolutely no consultation with Democrats.

I want to find a bipartisan solution on immigration. I am committed to it. I know it won't be easy. They say a journey of a thousand miles begins with just one step. The problem is my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to take one step and have the Democrats travel the other 999.9 miles. Certainly, this bill isn't even a step--it's a shuffle; it's a shell game. It has exactly the same problem that the STEM bill in September had. It moves visas from a legal immigration program, which works, over to a new visa category where there may or may not be sufficient demand to use those visas each year.

Immigration is always a zero-sum game for my colleagues on the other side: we will only increase visas for immigrants we like if we can eliminate immigration for immigrants we don't like. But it isn't even a zero-sum trick they're pulling here. Best estimates are that only 20,000 STEM visas would be issued to graduates, meaning that the other 35 visas would just disappear.

Which immigrants do they want to exclude in order to play this game?

They're people from around the world who want a chance to make a new life for themselves in the U.S., people like the fathers and mothers and grandparents of almost every Member of Congress. In this case, half of the people who come to America legally, through the Diversity Visa program, come from the continent of Africa, over half of them. Yet they come from all over. So the Republicans would have us say to the good people of Ghana or South Africa--but also to the people of Sweden and Ireland and New Zealand and Taiwan who apply to come here legally-- sorry, we have to withdraw the chance you had at 50,000 visas so we can divert them to, maybe, 20,000 STEM graduates. Maybe. Once again, the Republicans' math doesn't add up.

Here is something I'll bet you didn't know about the Diversity Visa program, which is that many of them come to this country and join the Armed Forces of the United States of America. But these legal immigrants are the target of the Republican bill.

I have news for my friends on the other side of the aisle: you can't fool immigrants. You can't pretend to be pro-immigrant and then eliminate immigration from one group to allow another group to come.

I woke up the day after the election and I saw a new landscape for the immigration debate. It is one in which Democrats and Republicans work together to solve tough problems facing the United States. We should not treat this as an opportunity for politicians to score political points again, but sadly, that is what is happening here. I want Republicans to know that Democrats support STEM visas. We don't need to kill other legal immigration programs to create a STEM program, but Republicans are more interested in killing the Diversity Visa program than in creating a program for STEM graduates. For this bill, no matter what happens on Friday, it will not pass in the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we can turn the corner on real immigration reform but only if Republicans are willing to put on their walking shoes and take a few steps with Democrats, walking side by side, for a greater, better America.

I thank the gentleman from Colorado and distinguished member of the Rules Committee for yielding time to me.

Despite bipartisan support for a clean STEM visa bill, this is a partisan bill that picks winners and losers in our immigration system and requires the elimination of the Diversity Visa program before a single STEM visa can be issued. In other words, we want to pick immigrants we like and then eliminate immigrants we don't like as though some are better than others. The interesting thing is that most of the Members of the House can look back into their own personal histories and find their own family members and ancestors who come from the countries that are being eliminated.

After the historic elections we've just witnessed, it flies in the face of our diverse American electorate to precondition STEM visas on the elimination of Diversity Visa immigrants, 50 percent of whom come from the continent of Africa. Like STEM graduates, they have much to contribute to the United States.

We've seen this poison pill before--pitting immigrant against immigrant--when the House voted down H.R. 6429 under suspension. But it gets worse. Inserted in the new version of the bill is an amendment to the V Visa program that the majority claims helps families and makes the bill balanced and bipartisan.

Let me be clear: this was not a provision negotiated with us on the Democratic side. It was negotiated with anti-immigrant groups and extremists in the Republican Party.

H.R. 6429 takes the V visa, a bipartisan visa created more than 10 years ago, and amends it to deny V visa holders eligibility to work and cuts out of the program spouses and minor children already living in the U.S. This backhanded, so-called family fix should offend anyone who truly cares about families.

But the family provisions are even worse than that. Families of STEM visa holders are treated fairly, but the families of ``ordinary'' green card holders are treated as second class. If you are a STEM degree holder, your spouse and minor children can immediately come to the United States and your spouse is granted a work permit. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle know this. However, if you're an ``ordinary'' green card holder who applies to bring your spouse and children to the United States through our regular family immigration channels, you will make your spouse and children wait at least a year before joining you in the U.S., and we will not allow your spouse to work once he or she gets here.

I agree that STEM holders should be able to bring their families-- their children and their wives or their husbands--and that their spouses should be able to work legally in the United States. However, I resent that the spouses and children of other family-based immigrants are treated differently and unfairly. Apparently Republicans' devotion to family extends only to families where the principal immigrant is smart enough to earn a Ph.D. or master's degree in a STEM field, and that is something that I resent. And that is something that all Americans should abhor. It goes against the immigration diversity that we have, as a Nation, created.

Mr. Speaker, I'm here today to make an introduction. I would like the Republican Party to meet America's Latinos. There are more than 53 million of us. But let me tell you a little bit about who we are and what we do.

First of all, most Latinos are citizens; and, in fact, most of us have been here for many generations. We live all over the United States, and our population is growing fast. In fact, every single year, 500,000 young Latino citizens turn 18 and become eligible to vote. Of Latinos under the age of 18, 93 percent are already citizens of the United States of America. In this last election, one in 10 voters were Latino. In another decade, we will be 25 percent of the voting age population in this great Nation of ours.

Here's a key fact about the more than 16 million Latino immigrants. They work; and they work hard, often in jobs that are the hardest to fill, picking grapes and garlic, caring for young children in day care centers, sweeping and cleaning as janitors, and, yes, digging ditches and making sure our dishes are washed. You know what else they do? They pay taxes, regardless of their legal status.

But here's one last fact you should know about Latinos. They love America. And, my Republican friends, I promise you, in time, you'll love us, too.

I hope this introduction is helpful, but I know it's a little late. The Republican Party really met Latinos on Election Day. At about 11 p.m., when the race was over, pundits, political strategists, and Republican candidates opened their eyes to discover who really lives and votes in the U.S. It looked liked we were watching Columbus stumble across America. Latino voters, who knew? Demographic changes moving as slow as glaciers, but this one seemed to sneak up on the news media like a sudden thunderstorm.

I've been trying to introduce my colleagues to real Latinos and immigrants for some time. I've worked on bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bills and stayed at the table to work out a compromise even after all Republicans had left the table. But the Republican Party seemed much more interested in the imaginary Latinos they tried to use as a wedge issue, so they crafted messages aimed at the very few Americans who are not offended when immigrants are referred to as criminals, gang-bangers, freeloaders, and lawbreakers whenever they are spoken about in America.

The party nominated a Presidential candidate who carried around a to- do list of creative ways to offend Latinos. It called for the deportation of more than 10 million families and say to self-deport, check; celebrate the extreme Arizona post-immigration laws, check; threaten to veto the DREAM Act and let hundreds of thousands of young people who have applied for deferred action fear for their future, check; stand with other Republicans and begged for their endorsement when they have called for electrified fencing to keep out immigrants because ``that works on livestock,'' check, check, check.

I believe Election Day was a checkmate for extreme, unfair, and intolerant anti-immigrant policies. Now, we need to come together to make progress.

In truth, some Democrats did not seem to really see this new electorate either or see the change coming. Too many Democrats did not see immigration reform as an urgent issue or recognize the need for change in a country that deports 1,000 people a day.

We need to set aside the mistakes of both parties and do what is right for the American people, including Latino immigrants. We need to invite Democrats and Republicans to sit at a big

table to work out immigration reform as soon as possible.

I have suggested that President Obama set up that big table at Camp David and invite leaders from both parties to discuss how we forge the coalition to pass comprehensive immigration reform. I think after the Election Day wake-up call, there are more and more of us willing to come to that table and negotiate, including friends in the Republican Party.

We have heard from Republican leaders who want to be at that table. I know some Republicans want to come to the table because they want the immigration issue off the table. They want it off the table because they are worried about Democrats running the table in statewide and national elections for the foreseeable future.

But listen, whatever your reason for coming to the table, please come. Together, we can fight for justice for immigrants. Together, we can reestablish the rule of law. Together, we can make immigration one of the greatest and most defining aspects of American society instead of something that divides us. Together, we can make Americans see that we can work together--Republicans and Democrats--as Americans first. So, please, join us and do what's right for this great Nation of ours.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for votes today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 604.

Mr. Speaker, today we will vote on a Republican proposal to provide green cards to certain immigrants and to cut the same number of green cards available to other legal immigrants.

How do we determine who gets more green cards and who gets fewer?

For my Republican friends, that's easy. They will provide more green cards to a very narrow number of immigrants they can tolerate--smart immigrants who have been educated in U.S. colleges and universities. They will make other legal immigrants--ones they can't tolerate--pay for that increase.

Meanwhile, Democrats have introduced bills that would also provide green cards to the immigrants who have been educated in U.S. colleges and universities. Our Democratic proposal, however, does not take green cards away from other deserving immigrants who want to come legally and contribute to this country.

On our side of the aisle, we respect all immigrants. Our bill recognizes the value of all of them to our economy and, indeed, to our future. We should not educate some of the world's most talented people in the STEM fields--that's science, technology, engineering, and math-- and then send them away to work in foreign lands to compete against us.

Democrats strongly support providing these visas as a way of helping the U.S. economy and creating jobs, not just for the immigrants but for the U.S. workers they will employ and the economic activity they will generate. Democrats want progress. We want visas for STEM graduates. We will work in a bipartisan manner with Republicans to get it done. It's a smart policy, and it's a just policy. Let me be clear. There is no economic reason--no budget reason, no jobs reason--to punish other immigrants because we give out STEM visas. Absolutely none. Let me try to make it simple.

Let's pretend we're not talking about immigrants, because any time some of my Republican friends hear the word ``immigrants,'' they immediately want to punish someone. So let's say, instead of immigrants, we're talking about a family of three children, of three honest and hardworking children. One child wants to go to college to become an industrial engineer, and another wants to go to college to become a math professor. The third--a diligent, industrious child-- doesn't want to go to college. Let's say he wants to start a landscaping business. He wants to work with the land and get his hands dirty.

The Republican plan is simple--to help the kids going to college and to cut the other kid off. He's out. Tough luck. He's not smart enough for this family. The Democratic plan is just as simple. We need scientists, engineers and mathematicians, but we need other workers, too--construction workers, machinists, chefs, entrepreneurs. We need immigrants from all over the world--from every continent, including Africa. Everyone who works hard helps our economy, so let's be helpful to everyone. That's the Democratic belief, but that's not the Republican plan today.

Maybe we shouldn't be surprised. After all, this proposal comes from a party whose Presidential nominee doesn't care about 47 percent of America. Call it the Mitt Romney deadbeat doctrine in which half of all Americans are freeloaders. Maybe that's all we need to know about this Republican plan. I suppose, in the Republican world, STEM visas are for the half of America that works, and the other visas are for the deadbeats that Mitt Romney doesn't care about--you know, the freeloaders like your parents on Social Security or your son or daughter with that student loan or the Pell Grant--or like my parents, who came from Puerto Rico with only an elementary school education, but who worked hard every day and put two kids through college and one of them in the Congress of the United States. Yes, those deadbeats. If my parents had needed visas to come to this country today under this new plan, they would never have gotten a chance.

We are changing the rules about who can--and more importantly--about who cannot come to America. So unless you view the world through Mitt Romney's ``us versus them'' vision of America, there is no reason to cut visas today. None. I want to stand up for the Zoe Lofgren provision of immigration--the Democratic vision of immigration. We're not divided into a country where people who gather at a fancy country club and write $50,000 checks to political candidates are good and where the people who stand to run and serve them the food are bad. America is not half deadbeats. We are one America, and we have a chance to prove it today.

Democrats are offering a sensible plan that doesn't divide us. It values all work from all immigrants. It achieves our common goal of creating a STEM visa program, keeping more scientists and engineers right here in America, making us stronger. In Mitt Romney's world, if you help one person, you have to punish another. I think that's wrong. I urge my colleagues to pass a fair and sensible plan to create a STEM visa program, and let's do it without punishing a single person.