Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 1752.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. General Leave

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1752 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, this is a simple and important vote. The 111th Congress has done a great deal, and it has been one of the most accomplished Congresses in decades. However, there are critical needs that must be met before this body adjourns and gives way to the next United States Congress. Mr. Speaker, it's been said that as a Member of the House one's true opponent is not the opposing party, but rather the Senate. This has never been more true, as the most deliberative body has unfortunately pushed some very complicated and yet critical decisions to the last minute, down to the wire, forcing the House and the American people in the position we find ourselves in today. Mr. Speaker, Congress is riddled with ways to obstruct and delay progress on bills. Just a few weeks ago, the House barely scraped together the votes to pass a child nutrition bill. In the Senate, a minority of Members continue to stall the defense authorization act, the DREAM Act, as well as their work, necessary work on making sure that middle class Americans don't face an increase in taxes come January. Gridlock is typical of Congress. And of course discussion is an important part of the political process. But never before have so many within government set out to stop progress for political gain at a great cost to our Nation. This rule will simply allow the necessary work of this House to continue, both proactively and reactively with regards to the United States Senate. The American people want Congress to create jobs and grow the economy by working together. It's not a small task. But it certainly can't be accomplished if we yield to those who would stand in the way of progress. That's why we must pass this rule today, Mr. Speaker, to allow this body to pass critical provisions to allow government to continue to operate essential services for our citizens, defending our borders and our Nation from threats here and abroad, to make sure that middle class Americans don't face the largest tax increase in history come January. Not only do we need to make hard, well-informed decisions about what to do with regard to our tax code, but we need to make tough decisions about many other tax provisions that are scheduled to expire at the end of this calendar year. It is that calendar, that 10-year clock that necessitates the 111th Congress getting this work done prior to the end of the year. I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and the rule. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1752 waives the requirement of clause 6 of rule XIII requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee. This would allow for the same day consideration of any resolution reported through the legislative day of December 18, 2010. Finally, the rule allows the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules through the legislative day of December 18, 2010. The Speaker or her designee shall consult with the minority leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this resolution. Today, Mr. Speaker, as we near the end of the historic 111th Congress, key legislation remains to be completed. This rule will provide flexibility to allow bipartisan negotiations to continue and put the finishing touches on important initiatives before our 111th Congress. This rule will allow the House to act as fast as it can when receiving legislation from the Senate which, as we all know, can arrive on a very unpredictable time frame. The unpredictability of the Senate thus far this Congress, the lengthy negotiations process, and the partisanship affects the prospects and drastically reduces our ability to take on so many important bills. This rule today is critical so that we can move forward to consider middle class tax cuts, the DREAM Act, food safety, defense authorization, regardless of where Members of this body stand on particular issues, and I think we owe it to our country to bring them forward in a timely manner for full consideration by this body. I am very proud to be a Member of the 111th Congress. This Congress has been one of the most productive bodies in half a century and our work is not complete. We've passed several historic bills that will improve the lives of every American and help dig us out of an economic disaster leading to our recovery. We've also passed legislation to make college loans more affordable, to protect consumers from usurious credit card interest rates, to make it easier for women to challenge pay discrimination, to finally regulate tobacco products under the FDA, to crack down on waste in the Pentagon; from giving business tax incentives to hire unemployed workers and giving tax credits to first- time homebuyers which realtors in my district have told me really helped get the market going again. But despite these historic accomplishments, there remains much work to be done in our final weeks. I could stand here as many Members of this body could for hours talking about the many bills we would like to take up and the programs we need to reauthorize, bills that would create jobs in America, strengthen our national security, fixing our broken immigration system, feeding our children, and repairing our highways. By extending same day and suspension authority until December 18, the day when government funding runs out, we're making a commitment to the country that will uphold our constitutional responsibility and stay on task and keep the government running. We're also keeping the promises that we made to our communities and our nation. If it comes down to the wire, Mr. Speaker, this rule would give us the flexibility to act in a timely fashion. We know that to consider a bill under a rule, there needs to be a one-day layover and that suspensions are only considered Monday through Wednesday. Without this rule, if the Senate sends us a government funding measure on Saturday, December 18, we would have to literally let the government shut down. This rule is a matter of efficiency. We're all aware of the time constraints before us and the limited time remaining in this session as well as the work that needs to be done. It will do the American people no service if their elected representatives are here debating multiple procedural rules, wasting our taxpayer dollars when government shuts down. That's why we've extended the authority through the end of the current CR. Let us save the remaining time of the 111th Congress to debate the important initiatives that are still pending and pass this rule today. Mr. Speaker, these are not unusual procedures. I want to point out that in the 109th Congress, the Republican majority reported at least 21 rules that allowed for same day consideration. In fact, five of those rules waived this requirement against any rule reported from the committee. Mr. Speaker, this will also be the last rule that I have the honor of co-managing with my good friend and colleague from Florida (Mr. Diaz- Balart), and I just want to say a few words on his behalf. It has been a great pleasure serving with the gentleman from Florida on the Rules Committee, having managed a number of rules together on the floor. I have always appreciated his thoughtful and incisive remarks on the Rules Committee and on the floor. His championing of developing American capital, developing the economy in Florida, in Miami; his dedication to foreign relations and affairs, to help restore democracy to a country from which he derives his heritage. Lincoln Diaz-Balart is truly a great American. I look forward to staying in touch with him in his future journeys, because I know that his career in Congress is not the end of his professional career or his life journey but it is merely a stage and a beginning and we will hear many great things in the future from one of the most respected, talented, insightful Members of this Chamber. It has truly been an honor to have been his colleague on the Rules Committee. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

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. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) for a unanimous consent request. (Ms. CASTOR of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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.

Mr. POLIS. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1756.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1756 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. POLIS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. POLIS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. For purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Mr. POLIS. I have already reserved the balance of my time for you to close. I have no further requests for time.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I have no additional speakers and reserve the balance of my time to allow the gentlelady to close.

Mr. POLIS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is seemingly innocuous, for who in this body would be against illicit agriculture on our Federal lands, and yet it gives you reason to wonder why we're not facing a crisis of illicit corn production, illicit potato production, illicit tobacco production on our Federal lands of the magnitude of the crisis of marijuana production involved with criminal enterprises on our Federal lands. This resolution only serves to perpetuate this failed policy of prohibition, which has led to the rise of the criminal production of marijuana on Federal lands. The gentleman from California said that the Federal Government must do more to confront this threat. I would submit that the Federal Government can do more by doing less. My home State of Colorado, the gentleman's home State of California, many other States have legalized and allowed for the medical use of marijuana, the production of marijuana, in a regulated capacity. The American public is split and a number of States continue to consider legalization for other uses as well. But as long as it remains illegal and as long as there is a market demand, the production will be driven underground. No matter how much we throw at enforcement, it will continue to be a threat not only to our Federal lands, but to our border security and to our safety within our country. The resolution states that, Whereas, Mexican drug traffickers use the revenue generated from marijuana production on Federal lands to support criminal activities, including human trafficking and illicit weapons smuggling, and to foster political unrest in Mexico. It is estimated that about half of the money that the Mexico cartels obtain is through the marijuana trade. Yes, by eliminating the failed policy of prohibition with regard to marijuana and replacing it with regulation we can cut the money to the criminal gangs by half--half the human trafficking, half the illicit weapons trafficking, half the casualties of the drug war--by focusing on the hard narcotic substances that are addictive and have enslaved a generation of youth. I have no doubt that marijuana plantations, as the resolution states, pose a threat to the environmental health of Federal lands, that drug traffickers spray unregulated chemicals, pesticides, and fertilizers, but I submit that the best way to address that is to incorporate this into a meaningful and enforceable agricultural policy for the country with regard to the regulatory structure for the production of marijuana.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the DREAM Act. The lives of hundreds of thousands of de facto Americans hang in the balance. The DREAM Act would provide a route for young people who were brought here, who know no other country, to take on the full rights and responsibilities as Americans. The DREAM Act is not only a human rights issue, it's an economic issue and it's a competitiveness issue. These young people are some of our very best Americans. And it's not an American value to force the sins of the father upon the son. These young people were brought here when they were 2 years old, 3 years old. It can't be argued that they violated the law of their own volition. They know no other country. To senselessly deport them to a country where they don't know anybody and frequently don't speak the language would deprive America of the fruits of our labors and the investments that we made in these young people through our public education system. I call upon the House and the Senate to immediately move to pass the DREAM Act and help make these young people proper Americans.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts and would like to join him in expressing my great honor in having served with the gentleman from Florida. It is my hope that he and I have another opportunity to manage a rule together. It is my expectation we will have the opportunity to manage another rule together. But in the event that that doesn't happen, I would like to express my warm wishes for his continued success in his future. I very much look forward to seeing what the gentleman from Florida will be involved with next, and I look forward to staying in touch and in close contact for many years in the future. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 3307, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. The passage of this bill, which would reauthorize the Child Nutrition Act, is critical to our Nation's children--to their health and well-being and to their academic success in school. Making sure that our children get a world-class education can't be accomplished if our children don't get the proper nutrition to make it through the day and learn. I have a background of involvement in public education, both as the superintendent of a charter school I started as well as the chairman of the Colorado State Board of Education. I have tasted and eaten many school lunches. I have seen firsthand how the lack of access to nutritious food prevents too many kids from reaching their full potential--intellectually, academically, and physically. Childhood hunger and poor nutrition are two of the greatest public health challenges--and yes, education challenges--that face our country. Nearly one-third of American children are overweight or obese, and many of those who are overweight or obese also suffer from malnutrition. This number has been on the rise nationally as well as in my home State of Colorado. This bill tackles both hunger and obesity by addressing access to food and the nutritional quality of food, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the House version of this bill. This bill facilitates a coordinated approach across all levels of government, the private sector, communities, school districts, and families to make real positive change. Specifically, this bill ensures up to 115,000 more eligible children access to school meals through direct certification, reduces paperwork, makes qualification easier, and creates savings for school districts. It increases the lunch reimbursement rate by 6 cents per meal. That is the first real increase in over 30 years. It requires updated Federal nutritional standards for school meals, strengthens local school wellness policies, and continues to provide schools with increased resources and training to improve meal quality. In particular, I am pleased that this bill will strengthen school districts' wellness policies. These provisions, which I introduced in the House in H.R. 5090, the Nutrition Education and Wellness in Schools, or NEW Schools Act, were also supported by the White House Task Force on Child Obesity report and included in the bill. Our schools should be our first defense against childhood obesity and unhealthy nutrition habits that stay with kids as they mature into adults and even have an intergenerational effect across their lives. While hunger affects people of all ages, it is particularly devastating for children.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it is standard and bipartisan practice to consider continuing resolutions under a closed rule. I would say this has been the practice on both sides of the aisle. Republicans have issued closed rules for every continuing resolution that they considered in both the 108th and 109th Congresses. Our goal with this continuing resolution is to do this in as clean a way as possible that allow these vital functions of government to continue to function: facilitation of international trade, our counterinsurgency efforts in Pakistan, our border security, and our sky marshals. In recent history, again since 1955, at least one continuing resolution has been enacted in each fiscal year except for three. And, in fact, during the entire 59-year period, from 1952 to 2010, there were only four instances when all of the regular appropriation acts were enacted on time. Mr. Speaker, the democratic process is a time-consuming one, but it is one that is worthwhile, and it is one that ultimately will reflect the will of the American people with appropriations bills that emerge from the Senate and from the House ultimately to be signed by the President. This continuing resolution gives our democracy time to work and makes sure that the world will not lose confidence in our country. It makes sure that our vital security interests here and abroad are maintained--our aid to our allies, our security, and our ports of entry here at home. We must make sure that the safety of the American people doesn't pay the price for the time it takes for our democracy to work. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the bill. I would like to thank Chairman Obey for his leadership on this bill, and his staff for their hard work and their dedication. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and the rule. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I agree with my colleague from California that to the extent we can grow American markets we need to work together in a bipartisan way to do that. I joined my colleague on letters to the President as colleagues on both sides of the aisle to encourage the further development of trade relationships, certainly starting with trade agreements that are very near completion with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. And also, I had the opportunity to host the honorable ambassador from Panama, Jaime Aleman, in my district of Colorado not too long ago, and I was able to introduce him to a number of Colorado businesses which stand to benefit from these. Now, of course, as a matter of how this comes to pass, that these efforts could not be initiated by this body, we could not have an amendment to a CR if this was an open rule. We could not have an amendment to an appropriations bill which contained a trade agreement. It has to be negotiated and delivered to us by the administration. And I know that President Obama has been committed to delivering and working on these trade agreements. In fact, in this very body, in the State of the Union address, President Obama very proudly talked about the export agenda and what it meant for American job creation. Of course, this means union jobs and it means nonunion jobs. It means job creation overall. The President remains committed to continuing to grow the market for American products and services across the world. That includes enforcing intellectual property provisions and it includes making sure that American products are available across the entire world. Now, again, one of the issues that would be threatened if this continuing resolution is not passed is the flow of products across our border. The funding will run out for the Border Patrol and the ports of entry. Products coming into this country, for good reason, have to be inspected. Some of that has to do with whether there are illegal, illicit products, narcotics that are being smuggled, whether there are illegal people that are being smuggled, or whether products that are not allowed to be sold here or were not created in compliance with our existing trade agreements are created. The border security efforts would be gutted if this continuing resolution does not pass, leaving trade in the lurch and leaving American job creation in the lurch. So this bill has an important nexus in international trade. The passage of this continuing resolution will facilitate the continued funding of our ports of entry, the continued funding of our border inspection services for both goods and people, which must continue. What degree of confidence would our negotiating partners of South Korea, Panama, and Colombia and many others have on our own ability to deliver on our trade agreements if the funding runs out at our ports of entry for goods and products? We must not allow that to happen. I also certainly agree that the public, as demonstrated in the last election, they want a change in the business as usual, and I think that change has not yet fully manifested itself. Yesterday this body passed the Pickford-Cobell bill, a long-overdue bill to pass, but it had one earmark in it, a Republican earmark from the Senate, from Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, a very large earmark that apparently was the price of support of getting it out of that body. I am happy to say that this continuing resolution before us today is a very clean CR, a very clean continuing resolution, that would allow during this negotiating process--and where we wind up with regard to these appropriation bills next year and the year after is a very important issue for political discussion, a very important issue between both parties to come to consensus around what we can do to pass both bodies. But it is not what we are debating here today. We are simply allowing the Federal Government to continue to operate its ports of entries, its border security, counterinsurgency efforts in Pakistan, continued aid to Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and the Middle East, continuing to allow these programs to operate for a 2-week period while we seek the bipartisan consensus that will emerge and is necessary to continue to be able to pass the appropriations bills that are necessary to allow government to continue funding. So this CR is an important part of our democratic process, and at least one continuing resolution has been enacted for every fiscal year since 1955. Traditionally they have been in many of those cases clean continuing resolutions, and simply allowed at the previously agreed upon rates by these bodies the Federal Government to continue while the negotiations are pending. I also believe it would strike panic in global financial markets if the Federal Government closes down and people don't have confidence that this Congress can even allow the Federal Government to continue its routine operations while the negotiating process for future agreements is still underway. So I encourage my colleagues to support this process through its conclusion over the next 2 weeks and support this continuing resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1741 provides a closed rule for consideration of H.J. Res. 101, making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011, and for other purposes. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides that the joint resolution shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions of the joint resolution. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit the joint resolution with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of approving a continuing resolution to maintain a level and consistent funding stream for our Federal Government. It is one of our primary constitutional responsibilities as Members of Congress to keep the Federal Government running through the passage of appropriations legislation. This continuing resolution will ensure that all necessary and vital functions of government will continue uninterrupted until both Chambers of our legislature have completed their work. If we do not act now, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government will effectively shut down this Friday, December 3. This continuing resolution is a short term, straightforward measure to keep the government running and get us through the next 2 weeks, until December 18, while bipartisan negotiations continue in the House and the Senate. It is my hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will work with us to move this important bill forward and to pass a clean continuing resolution contained under this rule. This continuing resolution will fund the Federal Government at levels already approved by the House in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations bills and the fiscal year 2009 supplementals. This includes extending the authority for the Department of Defense to execute the Commanders Emergency Response Program, an essential tool for military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would also continue the application period for retroactive stop loss benefits through the duration of the continuing resolution. The Retroactive Stop Loss Pay Program provides $500 for each month served in stop loss status with an average benefit of $3,700 to the brave servicemen and -women, veterans and beneficiaries of those whose service was involuntarily extended under stop loss. This continuing resolution would also continue to fund VA hospitals already under construction, including one in my home State of Colorado, the Denver VA Hospital, which serves 58,000 veterans living in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming. Millions of veterans and their families across this Nation depend on the VA for medical care and support, and we must pass this CR so we continue to build these much- needed facilities. Absent this CR, construction on these VA facilities will grind to a halt, leaving our veterans in the lurch. Our veterans took an oath to defend our country, and they deserve to come home to better care and a quality hospital that meets their needs. This CR would also allow the Federal air marshals to maintain the existing fiscal year 2010 fourth quarter coverage levels for international and domestic flights. This funding will allow for continued training, including investigative techniques, criminal terrorist behavior recognition, firearms proficiency, aircraft specific tactics, and self-defense measures that are necessary to protect the flying public. This funding allows the Federal air marshals to fulfill their mission of protecting air passengers and crew. Protecting our Nation and combating terrorism is a top priority for this Congress, and without the passage of this CR, those efforts with regard to our air marshals will grind to a halt, leaving the traveling public at greater risk. This continuing resolution would also allow the commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to maintain the level of Customs and Border Protection personnel in place for the final quarter and the final few weeks of fiscal year 2010. This provides proper funding to keep terrorists and their weapons out of the United States, secure and facilitate trade and travel and enforce hundreds of U.S. regulations, including immigration and drug laws. U.S. Customs and Border Protection law enforcement professionals serve as America's front-line defense on our Nation's borders at ports of entry, field stations and check points across the United States. It's important that we maintain a consistent level of personnel at our Nation's borders. By interrupting these funds, we would be jeopardizing Customs and Border Protection's ability to do their job and protect America. This funding enables these officers to inspect our borders, process trade, combat terrorism and smuggling. A vote against this continuing resolution is a vote to gut our border security when we need it the most. In addition to extending the existing authority for the Department of Homeland Security to regulate chemical facilities to prevent high levels of risk, this continuing resolution would also extend the existing Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA authority, to provide technical and financial assistance to States and localities for pre-disaster hazard mitigation activity. As an example, in my home State of Colorado, this continuing resolution would mean keeping in place vital programs like the 2008 Colorado Springs Wildfire Mitigation Project that removes vegetation around critical facilities and communities; to the 2008 Denver Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan, which assists 37 communities, townships, and counties in the Denver metro area in analyzing and assessing their hazard risks; the 2007 Coal Creek Crossing affecting the town of Erie in Boulder County, Colorado, flood reduction project that helps the town of Erie modify infrastructure around the Coal Creek Crossing to eliminate future damages. My district, Mr. Speaker, recently suffered one of the worst forest fires in the history of Colorado, which completely destroyed over 100 residences. These emergencies can strike anywhere, anytime; and if we fail to pass this continuing resolution, we will cripple the ability of the Federal Government to help with emergencies wherever they occur and whatever their nature is. This continuing resolution would also maintain the additional $23 million in funding for the Department of the Interior's new Bureau of Ocean Energy Management for increased inspections for offshore oil rigs. In light of the recent disaster we all witnessed unfold this summer in the Gulf of Mexico, these funds should be the last thing that we want to allow to expire or to cut. These funds are critical to ensure that tragedies like the Deepwater Horizon spill are not repeated and that our oil rigs are inspected. These funds allow existing rigs to continue operating in a manner that protects the workers on the rigs in the sensitive environmental areas in which these rigs operate, as well as protect our economy from future job loss. Interrupting these funds will put offshore oil rig workers' lives in danger, the environment in danger, and our economy in danger as well. The continuing resolution before us also maintains the current rate of the Foreign Military Financing, FMF, program, to include the $965 million that was advanced for Israel, Egypt, and Jordan in the fiscal year 2009 supplemental. By providing assistance and aid to our allies in the Middle East, we strengthen our position and make a vital investment in global and national security. A vote against this continuing resolution is a vote to cut off aid to our allies like Israel and the Middle East at a time when they are critical for the global fight against terrorism and to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons to Iran. Through this continuing resolution, we also continue the rate of operations for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund at $700 million. This section also continues the terms and conditions included in the fiscal year 2009 and 2010 supplementals which will help build and maintain the counterinsurgency capability of Pakistan under the same terms and conditions. Mr. Speaker, I have not been a supporter of the escalation of efforts in Afghanistan or in Iraq, but I think there is a strong bipartisan consensus in this body that assisting the Government of Pakistan in counterinsurgency efforts is one of the most critical fronts to protect Americans from terrorism, from a resurgence of the Taliban and from allowing al Qaeda a foothold in that area. There are vital programs that we must continue to fund without interruption. There may be some who question the need for a CR. Let me remind everyone that with the exception of fiscal years 1989, 1995 and 1997, at least one continuing resolution has been enacted for each fiscal year since 1955. I encourage my colleagues to support the necessary rule for this CR as well as the underlying CR to prevent the Federal Government from shutting down, jeopardizing our allies and friends across the world, as well as the safety and security of Americans. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I consume. General Leave