Providing for Consideration of Senate Amendments to H.R. 5281, Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2010
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the DREAM Act is one of the most important pieces of legislation that I have ever discussed on the floor of the House. It means everything to hundreds of thousands of de facto Americans. To them and to all of us, it is supremely important and supremely urgent. We have a choice between forcing a brain drain from our country or retaining the best and brightest to contribute to our country and make it stronger and more prosperous.
The young people covered under this bill are the children any parent would be proud of--our sons and daughters, our neighbors, our classmates, prom kings and queens, football players, and cheerleaders--who stayed in school, played by the rules, graduated, worked hard, and stayed out of trouble. They are the children of our great Nation.
We, too, should be proud--not proud of the broken and dysfunctional immigration system and lack of enforcement that put them in this situation, not proud of their parents' violations of our immigration laws, no matter how out of touch with reality those laws may be, not proud of the indignities, discrimination and fear that these young people have faced at every turn--but of how these young Americans have overcome adversity and have demonstrated American exceptionalism, their pluck, ingenuity, ambition, drive, and creativity in pursuit of, as our Declaration of Independence puts it, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These dreamers embody the very best among our American values, and we should be proud to call them countrymen.
This is a great Nation, and we will be greater still, stronger still, and more prosperous still with the full participation of these young men and women, each with the opportunity to go as far in life as their ambitions and abilities take them.
To be clear: The DREAM Act would provide conditional status to only a very limited number of individuals who meet ALL of the following standards. They must:
1. Have been brought to the United States when they were 15 years old or younger;
2. Have lived in the United States for not less than 5 years before the date of enactment;
3. Have been a person of good moral character, as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act;
4. Have graduated from an American high school or obtained a GED;
5. Be 29 years old or younger on the date of enactment;
6. Submit biometric information;
7. Undergo security and law-enforcement background checks;
8. Undergo a medical examination; and
9. Register for the Selective Service.
Only after 10 years in this conditional status, could recipients apply for legal permanent residence. In order to adjust their status they must:
1. Have completed 2 years of college; or
2. Have served in the U.S. Armed Forces for at least 2 years and, if discharged, has received an honorable discharge;
3. Demonstrate the ability to read, write, and speak English;
4. Have maintained good moral character throughout the 10-year conditional period; and
5. Pay all back taxes owed.
This debate is about Zendy.
Zendy was brought to the United States when she was four from Zacatecas, Mexico. Zendy grew up in the United States, and found out that her parents took her here illegally when she was 9, because one of her friends was flying to Montana and their family invited her, but her parents told her she couldn't go because she didn't have papers. Zendy went to prom senior year, ``it was really cool,'' she said, ``finally my mom let me and I wanted to look pretty for prom, I didn't have a date so me and my friends went to the fair.''
Zendy has a passion for law enforcement. As she put it, ``I want to help stop the drug cartels.'' Zendy, who is currently enrolled at the Community College of Denver, wants to be a DEA agent. Our decision today will determine if she engages in law enforcement to protect our laws, or she is pursued by law enforcement in violation of our laws. Will we create an agent of public safety, or will we criminalize a young woman because of actions that were not her own. Will we allow Zendy to become someone who protects us, or someone we must waste money criminalizing.
What benefits America more?
``I want to be in law enforcement and doing what I want to do in my life.''
Mr Speaker, we want Zendy as an American.
This debate is about Claudia.
Claudia is 21 years old now, and is a 3rd year college student at University of New Mexico. She attends college in New Mexico because unfortunately Colorado doesn't offer in-state tuition. She was brought here when she was 7 years old. In high school, she was vice president of the Latino Youth Leadership Club and engaged in hundreds of hours of community service tutoring younger kids.
Claudia enjoyed tutoring younger children, and wants to be an early childhood education teacher, teaching preschool and kindergarten.
She has no immediate family in Guadalajara, Mexico, where her family took her from. She was brought up here, doesn't remember much from there.
Claudia is a role model for her 11-year-old younger sister.
``I actually feel discriminated, it is sad that we are looked upon differently than other people even though we've been here long enough to know everything. This law would help me be near my family.''
Claudia would transfer to University of Colorado, closer to her family, if the Dream Act passes, and poses the question for us: Put yourself in my situation: What would you do? What's the right thing to do?
Mr. Speaker, we want Claudia as an American.
This debate is about Luis.
Luis was brought to the United States by his parents when he was ten years old in 2001. He grew up as American as anyone else, he was active in French Club and was on the varsity soccer team at Skyline High School. He was accepted into UNC but couldn't attend because of lack of status. He wants to be a psychiatrist but is not in school because of his immigration status, accepted to UNC, went to classes, dorms, couldn't go. There was ``never a difference between me and my peers,'' he says.
Luis wants to be a psychologist. Luis also seems to have a potential career ahead of him as a pundit, or perhaps even in public service or as a, g-d forbid, lobbyist. He said, without any malice, ``I might add in truly in the nature of trying to understand motivations and work with them. Many of the Republicans are looking into the money side of things, they won't listen to someone like me, what I would tell them is they should look at us not as a burden but as someone who will brighten their future. We are here and we're not going to go anywhere, and we're going to make this country better, create jobs and make the economy better.''
``America'', said Luis, is ``the place where you can make things happen.''
In a day of age in which we suffer from a national malaise of laziness, what better infusion of ingenuity can we attain than under the Dream Act?
Mr. Speaker, we want Luis as an American.
This debate is about Angel.
Angel, is a senior in high school in my district in Colorado. His parents brought him from Zacatecas, Mexico when he was six years old. In High School, he is very active and serves on the student council and in the Theater Club. He won an essay contest a couple years ago, and got a trip to NYC where he told me how excited he was to meet members of the cast of Wicked. The four days he spent in NYC helped manifest in Angel a keen interest in the arts, and he wants to go to college for performing arts.
He is 19 years old, and serves as a role model for his brother, who is in the same situation and is 14 years old and was brought here when he was one. Angel has no memories of any other country and has never been back to Mexico.
Mr. Speaker, we want Angel as an American.
This debate is about Michelle.
Michelle was brought to the United States at age 7, her little sister had skin disease caused by pollution in Mexico City. Good life, dad was a lawyer, mom stayed home, now clean homes.
Michelle is now in her 1st semester at Community College of Denver. She attended Fairview High School and was on the Nova girls soccer team as a forward. She also won an award from our Boulder Youth Advisory board, or YOAB, for greatest helper in the Boulder community because of her community service. She credited one of her teachers, Mrs. Carpenter, for helping her get involved with community service including Rotary Club.
Michelle has never been back to Mexico City, and is now 18 years old. She found out was undocumented, in 8th grade, when she wanted to go on a trip to Washington DC with her school, nations capital, school trip.
After completing her requirements, she would like to transfer to study marine biology.
``I would love to study marine biology but am not sure what they wont let me because of my situation,'' she said.
If not marine biology, then a teacher.
``My life is here now. It's not our decision to come here but we came and we're studying and we're trying make our lives better than our parents and to make a good life for ourselves. They are stopping the dreams for students who don't have papers. I don't know if they want us to work in McDonald's or Wendy's, I don't know what they want us to do, they aren't letting us reach our goals or our dreams.''
Mr. Speaker, we want Michelle as an American.
Constituent service is one of the most fulfilling components of our job. Regardless of party, regardless of the ideology of our districts, or our own ideologies, we are fundamentally in this business to help people to a person. When a veteran of a war is wrongly denied their benefits, we go to bat for them and help them cut through the bureaucratic impasse and get what they have earned by serving our country, or when we help a constituent stay in their home by identifying an alternative to foreclosure. What thrill can top that?
And then, Mr. Speaker, there are those who we are unable to help.
Chih Tsung Kao is 24. His story starts when he was 4. he entered the States with his mother with a visitor's visa, which was later changed to a student visa. ``I was basically dropped off at my grandmother's in Boulder, Colorado as my mother left back for Taiwan.'' During his stay with his paternal grandparents, his student visa status expired due to their negligence. Chih was 17 before he learned that his visa had expired. Since then, he's looked for different legal routes to obtain some sort of legal status; all leading to dead ends.
Chih is a college graduate with a Civil Engineering degree from the Colorado School of Mines in Golden, Colorado. He is currently serving in the Taiwanese military due to their conscription policy, and is trying to readjust to his new life there. This is how he describes his new life: I am illiterate in Chinese, which makes simple, everyday tasks here in the military difficult. I am also trying to learn basic spoken Chinese. ..... I can't even understand their basic commands here, and only move when others move. I will see how they will utilize me after my basic training ends and I am assigned a new post ..... but many superiors have told me they're not sure what they will be doing with me.
Chih contacted my office for help, but I was impotent to intervene and America lost this great mind, this great contributor, this engineer. Chih knows that the Dream Act comes too late for him, but told me to share his story with you, because, as he put it, ``The Dream Act may not affect me, I know that it will greatly benefit those that are in similar situations as I was. Many of them are students who strive to contribute to the workforce legally. I hope this letter helps paint a small piece of a larger picture for those that don't understand the situation and the feeling of helplessness many students and young people have in the States. It's a hard thing, feeling like the country you consider home, doesn't want you in the country at all.''
Visualize the image, Mr. Speaker, of a young man, with an engineering degree from Colorado's premier engineering school, forced to serve in the military of a foreign country where he knows no one, trying to obey orders in a language he doesn't even understand.
This is a waste of human capital, a waste of our public taxpayer money, to spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars educating Chih only to force him to serve in a military of a country he doesn't even speak the language of. It's farcical. It's absurd. And it happens every day and the Dream Act will solve it. For all of us in this body, Chih is the one we couldn't help.
We hold their futures in our hands. Mr. Speaker, please don't put us in the position of having to go back to them, yet again, and say not yet, when we all know it is inevitable. And this debate is about how to make our country stronger, more secure, more prosperous. This debate is about our values. This debate is about Zendy, Luis, this debate is about our Country and our future. I encourage my colleagues to do what they know to be the right thing.
Over $70,000 of taxpayer money was invested in Michelle. Now it's our choice. Do we want her to be a respected marine biologist or an illegal immigrant cleaning buildings for $6/hour? It's up to us. Which is better for us? For our nation?
What would you do in their shoes?
In our shoes, what do we want them to do to better ourselves and our nation?
In consigning a future scientist who may discover the cure to cancer to clean offices at 2 in the morning at minimum wage, we deprive ourselves of the cure to cancer.
``There is a million-dollar difference, over a lifetime, between the earning capacity of a high school graduate and a college graduate. Research also shows that people who go to college are healthier, are more likely to volunteer and to participate in their community, and are less likely to be incarcerated or rely on public assistance. ..... It is imperative that action be taken in 2010 to finally make college education available to these qualified graduates of U.S. high schools.''--Michael Crow, President, Arizona State University.
``The DREAM Act would throw a lifeline to these students who are already working hard in our middle and high schools and living in our communities by granting them the temporary legal status that would allow them to pursue postsecondary education. I believe it is in our best interest to educate all students to their full potential--It vastly improves their lives and grows our communities and economy.''--Drew Gilpin Faust, President, Harvard University.
The Dream Act will finally help eliminate the achievement gap in our schools, and inspire other students by upping the ante. Secretary Duncan said it well:
``Passing the Dream Act will unleash the full potential of young people who live out values that all Americans cherish--a strong work ethic; service to others; and a deep loyalty to our country. It will also strengthen our military, bolster our global economic competitiveness and increase our educational standing in the world.''
The Dream Act will finally help eliminate the achievement gap in our schools, and inspire other students by upping the ante.
The theme of my service in Congress is human capital issues. Improving our schools, increasing access to higher education. Taking on entrenched interests where necessary to increase our human capital. The flip side of the education aspect of developing our human capital is immigration. Not only do we want to grow the next generation of global leaders at home, we want to import the best and brightest from around the world. And we keep shooting ourselves in our own foot in this regard. We lost Chih, not because of him, but because of us. We turned a highly trained taxpayer-financed engineer into an incompetent enlistee in a foreign military. Brilliant.
The DREAM Act provides students powerful incentives to stay in school, do well and graduate. It is a practical step toward realizing a return on the U.S. public education system's investment in immigrant youths. A 2010 study by the UCLA North American Integration and Development Center estimates that the total earnings of DREAM Act beneficiaries over the course of their working lives would be between $1.4 trillion and $3.6 trillion.
We want them working in America. We want these potential high-earning tax payers to stay in our country and boost our economy.
A 2007 study by the Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that each high school dropout cost the nation approximately $260,000 in lost taxes and productivity. State and local economies suffer when they have less educated populaces. The nation's economy and competitive standing also suffer when there are high dropout rates.
Failure to pass the Dream Act will lead to a brain drain of our own making, a drain in which the very best of a generation, the college bound, the graduate school bound, the doctors and servicemen, scientists and poets are given a terrible choice: Go to a distant land where you have no connection, or stay here and work in the underground unskilled labor market.
The DREAM Act would also improve our national security. Leaders from the armed services have been nearly unanimous in their support of this bill because they recognize that it would help the military ``shape and maintain a mission-ready All Volunteer Force.'' Former Secretary of State General Collin Powell and military leaders from both parties have spoken up in support of the DREAM Act. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the DREAM Act would improve ``military recruiting and readiness'' and the U.S. Department of Defense Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness has gone as far as including the DREAM Act in its strategic plan.
It is difficult to make moral arguments that change minds in this chamber. Members of Congress, like Americans as a whole, come from various faith traditions including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, agnosticism, and atheism, and of course various strains of orthodoxy within their tradition.
However, there is no other area of law in which a young minor, a two year old, is culpable.
A. (Deuteronomy 24:16)--``Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.''
B. (Ezekiel 18:20)--``The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.''
There is no moral code prevalent in Judeo-Christian thought that suggests that it is moral for humanity to visit the sins of the father upon the son. Our values are reflected in our legal code: When someone dies, their debts are not passed down to the son or daughter. When an adult is pulled over for speeding, no ticket is given to the two year old riding in the child-seat in back. But that is exactly what some are advocating here. Ticket the two year old who was along for the ride, they say. What they were doing was illegal. The child was speeding. Regardless of one's faith, punishing the wrong person for a crime, because of a blood relation, defies our ethical sense.
Ticketing the two year old makes no more sense than penalizing a child for passively being brought here by their parents. A two year old, a five year old, an eleven year old is not only not competent to make such a choice, but even if you assumed that they were, they are in practice unable to economically or socially separate from the family unit that provides for their sustenance. A child must go with his or her parents, there is nothing else a child can do. We don't even go up to 18, the age of majority, with this bill. To eliminate any question, we admit that a 17 year old, a 16 year old, should somehow know better, and leave their parents and home and support structure if their parents try to take them somewhere illegally. That's a bad assumption. It breaks my heart that we had to make that concession, because I know 16 year olds, 17 year olds, Madam Speaker, and think of some of the 16 year olds you know. Are they really mature and capable enough to leave their parents and survive completely on their own? Perhaps some are, but to make this bill even less controversial we set the maximum age at 15. Which means a 16 year old is supposed to competently make a decision to leave his parents if they choose to immigrate illegally. That's the concession we made to get this bill passed. No one can argue that an 8 year old or 12 year old is capable of what we expect a 17 year old to have done under this bill. The lack of a DREAM Act mechanism is immoral for our nation, and forces underage children to bear the heavy costs of their parents' decisions to violate our laws.
One argument I hear is that the DREAM Act will only encourage more illegal immigration. That argument shows a profound lack of understanding about what brings immigrants here. First of all, the illegal immigrants in question already came here without a DREAM Act. Illegal immigrants will continue to come here and stay here as long as we continue to make a mockery of immigration enforcement, and as long as they can earn more money here. We have no meaningful workplace enforcement. Comprehensive immigration reform, and I'm proud to say I'm a co-sponsor of the House bill, would have solved that. We could have reduced the number of illegal immigrants from around 15 million to close to zero. But we did not. So we are where we are, and we are not talking about comprehensive immigration reform today, instead we are talking about one of the politically easiest, most economically important, and most morally pressing element of immigration reform: recognizing the hundreds of thousands of de facto Americans, who were brought here as minors without their knowledge or consent and that our taxpayer dollars have educated 30 and will be living their lives in our nation as legal entities with the potential to eventually attain the full rights and responsibilities of citizenship.
Passing the DREAM Act would reduce the number of illegal immigrants by over 500,000,
Those who oppose the DREAM Act support the ongoing presence of over 500,000 more illegal immigrants within our borders. Opponents of the DREAM Act make a travesty of the rule of law and facilitate the ongoing presence of undocumented foreign nationals inside our country, which hurts the budgets of counties, cities, and so frustrates the states with good reason. Opponents of the DREAM act would make a criminal, rather than a police officer, out of Zandy.
States like Arizona have taken actions against illegal immigration precisely because of the size of this issue, and Congress's failure to do anything about. Well, finally we have a chance to cut illegal immigration by about 5 percent. That's substantial. I'd rather cut it by 100 percent, but 5 percent. It's something we can be proud of--a legitimate first step to show the American people that we are serious about solving this problem. At the same time, it will strengthen our economy, improve our schools, make money for taxpayers, and help restore the rule of law to our nation.
Some opponents of the bill have charged that this bill is being pushed through without sufficient time to review it. This is hard to understand considering the bill was introduced nearly 10 years ago, and has been introduced into every subsequent Congress. In spite of this, a great deal of misinformation has recently been spreading regarding this bill. In order to set the record straight, let us explicitly address some of these concerns.
Opponents of this bill have claimed it has not received a CBO score, when in fact it has. CBO found that the DREAM Act would reduce the deficit by 1.7 billion dollars over ten years.
CBO SCORE
H.R. 6497 would affect federal revenues in a number of ways. The increase in authorized workers would affect individual and corporate income taxes, as well as social insurance taxes. On balance, those changes would increase revenues by $1.7 billion over 10 years, according to estimates provided by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). Newly authorized workers also would be eligible for some refundable tax credits. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 6497 would decrease net direct spending by about $500 million over the 2011-2020 period. That amount reflects changes in spending for refundable tax credits, Social Security, Medicare, student loans, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS would charge fees to certify legal status under the bill. Homeland Security (DHS). DHS would charge individuals fees to certify their legal status under the bill. The department's costs to implement the bill would be covered by those fees. Under the proposal, DHS also would impose a surcharge on individuals seeking to obtain or renew their conditional nonimmigrant status. DHS would not be authorized to spend those surcharges. CBO has not completed an estimate of the legislation's potential effects on discretionary spending, but any such effects would probably be small.
I expect all Members who are serious about the deficit will enthusiastically vote for this bill.
The DREAM Act would not extend any special benefits to beneficiaries. The bill specifically excludes them during the 10-year conditional period from receiving any government subsidies to participate in the health insurance exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act. Those with conditional status also would be ineligible for Medicaid, Food Stamps and other entitlement programs.
States will still have the authority to decide who is eligible for public higher education benefits based on residency. If a state provides eligibility for in-state tuition to DREAM beneficiaries in the state and they choose to attend a public university outside of the state, they will pay the same rates as other out-of-state students.
Students may only access benefits that they work for, or pay for. DREAM beneficiaries are only eligible for federal student loans (which must be paid back), and federal work-study programs, where they must work for any benefit they receive. Students are prohibited from obtaining Pell or other federal grants.
To be clear: recipients of the DREAM would not be able to receive any federal funds. These concessions were not easy to make. While painful, however, these are fair concessions to ease the concerns regarding this bill. For opponents to continue their obstructionism demonstrates a clear lack of interest in actually solving our immigration challenges.
In my state of Colorado, 46,000 young people will be eligible, according to one study. These young people are an untapped resource for my state that would boost the local economies of where they live.
Our decision before us today is clear, we can either create a marine scientist to contribute to our country and increase our knowledge, or create an illegal immigrant out of Claudia.
Our nation deserves more scientists and engineers, not more illegal immigrants.
I also want to pose two questions, one is what would we ask of them (what do we want them to do), the second is, what is best for us and our country?
Claudia posed it well ``What do they want us to do?'' Instead of going to college or serving in the military, Are we telling Claudia and the others to clean buildings at night? Are we telling them to become nannies, construction workers, housekeepers or other occupations available to undocumented immigrants because of our lax enforcement? Or are we telling her to go to a country where she knows no one and has never been in her memory, where she barely speaks the language and would be lost and unable to work? I want Claudia to be the best darn Marine Scientist in the United States and to make great scientific discoveries that benefit humanity and improve our knowledge of the oceans. For those who oppose the DREAM Act, what do you want Claudia to do?
And what serves us best? What serves our interests best? Is it Claudia working illegally as a housekeeper? Is it her leaving our nation after we've invested tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money in her education? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to our country to allow her to live up to her potential here with the rights and responsibilities of an American. These stateless young people will be a credit to their nation, let's make it our nation.
Madam Speaker, this debate is about Ray. Ray was brought here when she was two years old. Her parents told her that she was born in the United States so she wouldn't feel the stigma of being foreign born. So Ray grew up not knowing she was foreign born until she was a teenager. Ray wanted to be involved with the fashion industry. Her tough, can-do attitude led her to start her own lace business. Unfortunately, Ray is no longer with us, but don't fret, this immigrant story ends happily. Ray Keller, my great grandmother, passed away at the age of 98 in 1989. Without friendly immigration laws that allowed people to naturalize, I wouldn't be standing here before you today, as a member of the United States Congress. So too, there are future generations of Americans, including I'm sure future members of this body, who are relying on our vote today to recognize their forebears as the excellent Americans that they already are in all but name. Madam Speaker, Ray Keller was a proud American.
I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, those who oppose the DREAM Act support the ongoing presence of over 500,000 more illegal immigrants within our borders. Opponents of the DREAM Act make a travesty of the rule of law and facilitate the ongoing presence of undocumented foreign nationals inside our country which so frustrates our States and cities.
Let me end by simply relating this to common sense. If you are pulled over for a speeding ticket and you have a child in a car seat next to you, that 2-year-old doesn't get a speeding ticket. If there is a bank robber who robs it with a toddler on their back, that toddler doesn't spend a life in prison.
I will end with a quote from Deuteronomy 24:16: ``Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers' sins.''
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source